The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (the fine of 4 million won and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant, while recognizing each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant was a primary offender with no criminal force prior to each of the instant crimes; and (c) the Defendant appears to have experienced economic difficulties.

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant openly displayed the photograph of another person's body at an Internet obscenity site five times, and the crime is not less unfavorable to the defendant in light of physical condition and obscenity, face identification, the number of publicly displayed photographs, and the frequency of crimes, etc., which are revealed in the photographing material, and thus there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment. In full view of all other circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and effective June 12, 2019, on an ex officio decision on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and Article 59