성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
The judgment below
Of them, the guilty portion and the attached Form 2017 order 2849 order 6.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts. ① With respect to the charges of intrusion on each structure in attached Form 2017 order 824 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “the first crime list”), the location of the crime was in relation to the charges of intrusion on each structure in attached Table 2017 order 824 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “the first crime list”), and whether the toilet is a general toilet or a public toilet was not specified in the charges. The statutory punishment for the crime of intrusion on a structure outside the Republic of Korea is larger than the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the sexual purpose intrusion). The prosecution’s indictment as a crime of intrusion on a structure without any additional investigation is unlawful as an arbitrary exercise of the right of prosecution. In order for the prosecutor to prosecute each of the above charges as a crime of intrusion on a structure, it is not proven to the extent that the toilets as stated in each of the above charges is not a public toilet.
② Arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing an offense is illegal arrest, which lacks time contact, the apparentness of the offense, and the necessity of arrest.
③ The evidence presented by the prosecutor is either collected in connection with the illegal arrest of a flagrant offender (No. 28,29) or derived from the illegally collected evidence (No. 22, No. 23, No. 45, no. 2017, no. 824, no. 824, no. 2849, no. 13, no. 24, no. 25, and no. 27, no. 2017, no. 824, no. 824, and no. 39, no. 40, and no. 45) or any evidence collected without the warrant (No. 13, no. 24, no. 824, no. 2017, no. 824, and no. 45).
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In addition to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Prosecutor 1 did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine) and the crime sight table 2849 [Attachment 2017 Highest 2849] of the lower judgment.