In addition, he referred to the circles of the circulation of advertising; One, the users of the open and closed groups, which together include over 4,000 users. Second, each of the users of these groups has the potential to distribute the content further. It was claimed that the defendant objectified the victims, was indifferent to them and to the damage caused while treating women and minors as sexual objects that could be traded.
He also referred to the severity of the circumstances described in the second indictment, to the advertising content containing 22 videos containing obscene material; Figures of naked minors performing sexual acts against each other, and adult figures performing sexual acts on minors using various objects.
In his arguments, he noted the damage caused to the victims, referring to quotes from affidavits of crime victims submitted to the court. Referring to the ruling, he argued that since the amendment to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law, there has been a trend of harsher punishment that was expressed in court rulings in the various courts.
According to the accusing counsel, separate punishment complexes should be determined. As for the first charge, given the multiplicity of offenses, the number of victims, their age and the circumstances in which the offenses were committed, a punishment range ranging from 3 to 6 months imprisonment should be set for each of the victims of the offense, and an overall range for the first charge ranging from 3 to 6 years in prison, emphasizing that 78 victims were injured in the business restrictions (77), but the calculation of the compound is not arithmetic. For the second charge, he petitioned to determine a punishment range ranging from 3 months imprisonment to 9 months in practice.
As to the location of the defendant's punishment in the compound, he claimed that weight was given to the defendant; to his young age, his confession that saved him from hearing the complainants' testimony. Strictly speaking, he referred to the Probation Service's reports, which showed that the defendant was taking a restrictive approach with regard to the severity of his actions, the scope of the offenses and the degree of his involvement, and that he was not ready for a substantial rehabilitation process.