Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of another person who could cause sexual humiliation or shame against his will.

2. First of all, it is recognized that the defendant taken the body of E while having sexual intercourse with E, as described in the facts charged.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant's above photographing was against E's will or taken with such recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① The Defendant and E are school restriction relationships from June 2012 to September 2016.

E was a director at the place indicated in the facts charged on September 2015, and the Defendant and E were sexual intercourse at that place.

When the Defendant is in a sexual relationship with E or she takes clothes with E, he/she taken the appearance of E in several videos when he/she takes clothes. While recognizing the fact that E/she taken his/her clothes, he/she did not refuse to do so, and he/she actively responded to the photographing.

In this situation, it is difficult to readily conclude that only the pictures recorded in the facts charged are against E’s will.

(2) E does not have any consent to photograph his/her body while having a sexual intercourse, and it is true that he/she had different knowledge of the photographic effect itself.

was stated.

However, as seen earlier, E was clearly aware of the Defendant’s photograph, and consented to such photograph.

As such, E's investigation agency and this.