2. The crime of this case where the defendant, using the camera function of mobile phones, taken a total of 500 times or more by unspecified women, is not less than that of the crime of this case in light of the frequency, etc. of the crime.

However, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing factors in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable, considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s primary crime without the record of the crime; (b) the physical part of the body exposed to the outside was limited to the victim; and (c) the victim was unlikely to feel sexual humiliation.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, it is clear that there is an error in the part of the judgment below's "registration and submission of personal information" at the time of the occurrence of the obligation to submit personal information, and such error is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure as follows. "Where this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the defendant is a person subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the defendant is obligated to submit his/her personal information to the head of the competent police agency