Prosecutors failed to persuade appeal judges to impose a lengthier prison sentence on a man who received an indecent photo of an abused child.
Crown lawyers wanted the appeal court to extend the 18-month sentence handed to Michael Leith, 48, for participating in a crime with 73-year-old Muriel Melville.
The High Court in Edinburgh heard last September how the former dinner lady sexually assaulted a little girl before sending Leith a picture of her.
The court heard how Leith urged Melville to rape the young child, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Judge Lord Brailsford jailed Melville, of Dunfermline, for two years and four months for her role.
She was also placed under supervision for two years following her release from prison.
Melville had pleaded guilty to a sexual assault charge relating to an occasion between July 2013 and July 2014.
Leith, a prisoner of HMP Perth, pleaded guilty to attempting to conspire to rape and sexually assault a young child and to take indecent photographs of her between July 2013 and July 2014.
Melville had come into contact with Leith on an internet forum, an earlier hearing was told.
Leith later travelled to her home in Dunfermline, it was said.
During subsequent internet messages, Leith raised the subject of sexually abusing a child.
Crown lawyers appealed Lord Brailsford’s decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
They argued that the judge’s sentence was “unduly lenient” and they asked for the sentence to be extended.
Appeal judges refused to extend the 18-month sentence but imposed a three-year supervision order on Leith, which will begin upon his release from prison.
In a written judgment issued at the Court of Criminal Appeal, judge Lord Menzies ruled that Lord Brailsford’s sentence was correct.
He ruled that as Leith was convicted on a different set of charges from his co-accused and hadn’t threatened Melville, Lord Brailsford acted correctly.
However, Lord Menzies concluded that his brother judge should have imposed a supervision order on Leith.
In the judgment, Lord Menzies wrote: “The sentencing judge indicated in his report to us that he regarded this as a very difficult sentencing exercise and we agree with that observation.”