If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

1. On June 12, 2013, the Defendant, on June 12, 2013, at the female toilets of the E company, the Defendant: (a) installed a brumeras in the front door of the change of the address, and used it, taken a brush to view the use of it by the F, an employee of the E company.

2. On June 24, 2013, the Defendant, on June 24, 2013, photographs around the place indicated in paragraph (1) at around 10:17, and in the same manner as described in paragraph (1), F, an employee of the said E company, viewed the cryp.

Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of the victims who could cause sexual humiliation or shame over a total of twice against their will.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer in G (including H’s statement part);

1. Each statement of H and F prepared;

1. Seizure records;

1. A report on the analysis of digital evidence;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning photographic images;

1. Article 13 (1) of the relevant Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 1156, Dec. 18, 2012; hereafter the same shall apply in force on June 19, 2013); Article 14 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act of confiscation;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order cannot be deemed that the crime of this case committed by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be minor in terms of the nature of the crime committed in which he/she takes pictures of another person in his/her workplace by installing a

However, the defendant recognized the crime from the early stage of investigation to repent of his mistake, the defendant seems not to have distributed the photograph of this case, the defendant left away from his workplace where he had worked for more than 20 years due to this case, and the defendant left the office.