성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that there is an error in the process of seizing a mobile phone carried by the defendant at the time of arresting the defendant in the act of committing the crime (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”) and failing to request the ex post facto request. However, since the instant mobile phone is returned to the defendant and the mobile analysis request was voluntarily received, the instant mobile phone and the mobile analysis report, etc. seized through legitimate procedures cannot be deemed as illegally collected evidence or infringe on the substantive substance of due process, and thus, its admissibility is recognized. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension
2. Determination
A. At around September 17, 2011, the Defendant, at the second reading room of the Gyeonggi-do Library B, taken a bridge of the said victim who was seated against the victim’s will, after getting off the instant mobile phone under the said reading room, who could not know his name by using the camera function in the mobile phone, and was sitting down against the victim’s will.
From that time to March 29, 2012, the Defendant taken photographs of the victims’ legs, etc. whose names cannot be known through the same method 13 times, as stated in attached Table 1 to 13 of the List of Crimes in the lower judgment, from that time, until March 20, 2012.
Accordingly, the defendant took photographs of another person's body, which could cause sexual humiliation or shame, using devices similar to the camera, against his will.
B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of each of the facts charged; (b) the investigation report (in relation to the photographs stored in the suspect mobile phone, not more than 28 pages of the investigation records); (c) mobile analysis report (not more than 50 pages of the investigation records); and (d) analysis reports and seizure reports submitted by the prosecution, etc. submitted by the prosecution; and (b) the mobile phone camera on March 29, 201