A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (limited to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use and photographing of Cameras, etc.))

In light of the Supreme Court precedents (2013Do4279) that “the case of photographing another person’s body” in the former part of Article 14(1) provides that “the case of photographing another person’s body against the latter’s will” shall be limited to the case of photographing another person’s body directly” (Article 14(1) and (2) of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act shall also be construed as limited to the case of photographing another person’s body itself.

Unlike the meaning of “the case in which another person’s body is taken,” and “the case in which another person’s body is taken,” construing that “the case in which another person’s body body is taken,” is included in “the case in which another person’s body is taken,” as it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the text of the law, and thus, cannot be permitted under the principle of statutoryism.

The photograph transmitted by the defendant is not a photographic image of the victim's body itself, nor a photograph of the victim's body itself, which is a photograph taken after reproducing the image of the victim's sexual intercourse with the defendant and the victim from the computer. It does not constitute a "recording material" within the meaning of the above provision.

No defendant shall be punished for violation of Article 14(2) of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act.

B. The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

2. Determination

A. In Article 14-2 of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (amended by Act No. 8059 of Oct. 27, 2006), “an act of taking another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a camera or any other device with similar functions, has a provision punishing only one person against his/her will.”