The Appropriate Punishment Range - Conclusion:
- As stated, I found that one appropriate penalty range should be determined for each amended indictment. At the same time, I found that the premises to which the accuser petitioned were appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In other words, for offenses of sexual harassment and invasion of privacy, I determine that the appropriate penalty range from 3 to 6 years in prison, and for an obscene publicity offense in which the image of a minor is imprisoned, the appropriate punishment range from 3 to 9 months in
- After considering the protected social values, the extent of the enormous harm to them, the customary punitive policy, and the circumstances of the commission of the offenses, I determine that the appropriate penalty range for the entire indictment ranges from 3.5 to 6.5 years in prison, along with accompanying penalties in character, suspended imprisonment, fine, and compensation.
Circumstances unrelated to the commission of the offense - determining the appropriate punishment within the boundaries of the compound:
- To Kola, I credit the defendant for the fact that he, a young man of about 23 years old, had no criminal record, confessed to an amended indictment without conducting a trial, thus saving the many testimonies of the victims of the offense and precious public time. I also considered that the defendant was in restrictive conditions and was integrated into therapeutic groups. I also credited the defendant with his complex personal and family circumstances as described at length in the Probation Service reports and the letters of his parents (Tel/2-Tel/3).
- Although he did not take full responsibility before the Probation Service, as will be presented below, in his last words to the sentence before me, he expressed remorse, shared his difficulties in opening up to the Probation Service, claiming that "this is a mistake of a small child and I understand the damage... I have a girlfriend, I have a mother, I internalized it on the day I was arrested, it's been sitting on me ever since because I imagined if they distributed pictures of my partner or my mother, what would I do with it." However, it appears that his words were uttered verbally and externally, as they are inconsistent with the impression of the Probation Service and the opportunities given to the defendant up to the date of the sentencing.
- The defendant did not succeed in taking advantage of the opportunities given to him when he was referred to three probation service reports, and although he was integrated into the group for several months, he had difficulty recognizing the sexual motives for his behavior patterns, he did not internalize the seriousness of the wrongdoing in his actions, and he took partial responsibility, despite his confession.
I would like to emphasize that even after hearing the arguments for the sentence, in light of the defense's statement and its request, according to which the defendant continues to be treated, he was referred for an additional update from the Probation Service, before he is sentenced. However, even in this report of September 15, 2025, it was stated that even today the defendant tends to reduce and obscure the scope of the offenses, the extent of his involvement and the initiative in carrying them out, so that even today, while he is awaiting sentencing, he is unable to delve into his choices and refuses to examine his sexual motives that were behind his actions, and therefore the risk posed by the defendant's situation has not diminished.
- The defendant did not express real empathy for the victims of the offense, and as it appears from the reports, the defendant holds problematic positions regarding the transformation of a person into an object and its exploitation, and sees his personal needs over the other. At the same time, I gave weight to the fact that the defendant was not characterized as having sexual deviations as noted in the Probation Service's report and in the risk assessment, and on the other hand, as stated, they do not deeply internalize the wrongdoing in his actions.
- The details of the Probation Service's reports, and the defendant's perception of the offenses of which he confessed and was convicted, illustrate the importance of the consideration of deterring the individual in determining his sentence within the scope of the appropriate punishment, and constitute a considerable consideration as to why his sentence should not be placed at the bottom of the range.
- The expansion of the phenomenon of the industry of distributing and publishing sexual content on the Internet, while exploiting the bodies of women and minors, and its explosiveness, justifies tangible punishment and deters the offense from being committed by other criminals. Similarly, the development of technology and the expansion of the use of social networks justify punishment that will deter the public from committing these offenses through the Internet, and thus protect the public as a whole.
- In view of all of the above, the defendant's sentence should be placed in the middle of the appropriate punishment range.
- As for the compensation component, counsel for the parties agreed that there is room to award compensation to the victims of the offense that is the subject of the first indictment, while the defendant's attorney petitioned for minimal compensation, the accusing attorney petitioned for compensation not less than ILS 5,000 for the victim of the offense of sexual harassment and ILS 3,000 for the victim of the offense of invasion of privacy without sexual harassment by referring him to a ruling that supports his arguments. Having considered the case law that is customary in similar cases relating to the question of compensation (see, for example, the Mikhailov case and the Gavrilov case mentioned above) and I have carefully examined the affidavits of the victims of the offense and the damages caused to all the victims of the offense as described in the amended indictment, even if they chose not to put the pain in writing, I adopt the accuser's petition regarding the distribution of the amount of compensation to be imposed on the victims of the offense.
- As for the fine component, we are dealing with offenses committed for the purpose of pure economic gain (at a minimum, ILS 51,500 for one user) with fatal injury, so a significant fine should be imposed on the face of it. However, since I have found that compensation should be imposed on the victims of the offense in the first charge, and on the other hand, the fact that the defendant also committed the offense of publishing an obscenity in which the image of a minor is for profit without there being victims for compensation, and in the proper balance, the amount of the fine must be taken into account in the circumstances of the case, but not to refrain from imposing a fine.
Conclusion: