[2] Whether a video recording made with another person's consent is also included in the "recordings" under Article 14-2 (1) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof, which provides for a crime of photographing a camera, etc. (negative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that even if the defendant distributed a body photograph taken against the victim's will to the extent that it is not recognized that it does not constitute "a person who distributed the body photograph" under the latter part of Article 14-2 (1) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof

1. As to the facts charged of violation of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims, the lower court rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement in light of various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, such as the circumstances at the time of shooting, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the circumstances leading to the victim’s complaint, and the details of the victim’s statement statement return, and acquitted the victim on the ground that there was no proof of the crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant evidence and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in determining probative value, or by exceeding the bounds of the interpretation of “in

2. In light of the language and text of Article 14-2(1) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof, the legislative intent and history thereof, legal interests protected by the said provision, “the photographer” means the photographer taken against another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame, and it is interpreted that it does not include a photographer taken with another person’s consent (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7973, Oct. 29, 2009).

On the premise of these legal principles, the court below is just in holding that as long as the defendant was not recognized to have taken the lower body against the victim's will, even if he distributed the photographs, the defendant does not constitute "the distributor of the photographs" as provided in the latter part of Article 14-2 (1) of the above Act, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged. There is no error in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)