2. The defendant's defense room is the change that, in his mind at the time of taking a bath, the defendant sent a cell phone to the shower room outside the shower room, and the defendant heard the female's secret shot and went back to the play room, and there is no change in his photographic body to screen the cell phone at the window of the shower room and photograph the bath.

3. Determination

A. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, there are the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant, the prosecution telephone recording investigation of the Defendant, the witness E’s legal statement, the police protocol of E, and the accusation of E.

B. Among them, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant denies its contents, and since the prosecutorial telephone recording investigation against the defendant does not consent to use it as evidence, all of them are inadmissible.

C. Meanwhile, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the Defendant was using his cell phone camera in the shower room outside the shower room at the time E took a bath, and the Defendant’s removal of a number of motion pictures taken most recently from among the motion pictures stored in his/her cell phone with the escape and the escape, and the Defendant, upon receiving a search and investigation within the hospital due to the accusation of E, led to the confession of the police officer, and the investigation agency also stated to the same effect, and there is no reason to suspect the Defendant.

However, E does not regard who photographs itself, and E states that its cellular phone is white, while the defendant's cell phone is the mobile phone.