A couple of points here. As others have mentioned, the use of the term "child pornography" is not encouraged. So that people understand what is really happening you may wish to refer to "images of child sexual abuse".
.
.
"He was found guilty of both making and possessing ..."
Making can mean two very different things. What he actually did, you will be able to tell from how long he was sentenced to.
If you recall the broadcaster Huw Edwards, he received a suspended sentence for "making" images.
Making an image by simple downloading is treated the same as possession for the purposes of sentencing.
To explain why this is, in the past an offender may have had a book or magazine etc of indecent images and he would be in "possession" of those images.
But with the increase of the internet then it became more common for people to download images and then, maybe, delete them and so no longer be in "possession" of them.
The offence of "making" overcomes this. If a person downloads an indecent image then they have made a new copy of the image.
Imagine you have a photocopier and you photocopy an image. By doing this you are "making" a new image. Even if you later destroy this photocopy you have still originally "made" it at some point.
It's the same thing with downloading images from the internet; you are "making" a new image every time you download an image to your phone or other device. Even if you later delete this image you have already "made" an image by downloading it.
.
.
In contrast, production, actually making the original image at source, is sentenced much more harshly and typically will result in 6 years in prison as a starting point with a range of 4 to 9 years in prison.