(Taking) Partial revocation of prosecution)

Residence

Reference domicile

On October 23, 2012: at around 00, the Defendant moved to the front line of the section of this water zone in the subway line digital conference area with subway line 7 subway lines, and the Defendant taken two of them against the victim’s will by using the part of the bridge in his possession, the ○○○ (the 20th, the 0th n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the n, the

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.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

Each of the pictures of this case does not have taken the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame.

3. Determination

A. Article 13(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) which punishs an act of photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will using a camera or similar mechanism, to protect the victim’s sexual freedom and freedom not taken without permission. As such, whether the taken body constitutes “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” should be objectively determined by taking into account not only the victim’s clothes, degree of exposure, etc., but also the circumstances leading up to the photographer’s intent, place and distance of filming, image of the taken body, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do78585, Jul. 28, 2008).

B. In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s taking of another’s body that may cause sexual humiliation or sexual humiliation, as in the opinion of a majority of jurors of the instant participatory trial.

① The Defendant taken photographs of each of the instant pictures in front of the victim in front of the Dongbuck, while getting off the victim. Each of the instant pictures was taken in a public place as they were ordinarily displayed in the view of people at a public place. In particular, rather than buckbucks or bridge parts, it was intended for the telegraph of the victim, rather than for bucks or bridge parts.

② Although the victim was 20 years old women, he did not reach excessive exposure beyond the ordinary level of women in the same age group.

③ The victim laid down the right bridge on the left side of the subway trains’ seat, and took part of the buckbucks exposed to the bridge between them. The victim took part of the bucks, i.e., handphones, and took part of the bucks with Handphones, without taking part of the earphones. Such attitude is close to the young woman’s appearance that can naturally see it at an open place where people walk rather than causing sexual humiliation or sexual humiliation.

④ The Defendant, rather than taking a photograph of each of the instant pictures with a view to meeting his own sexual desire, took the overall form of the victim’s pictures in order to keep the pictures from a shot sense at the victim’s appearance, and then to keep the pictures in a shot sense.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

Jurors's verdict

1. Innocence: Two persons;

2. Innocence: Five persons;

For the above reasons, this case is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

The number of judges

Judges Doo-leap