A. In relation to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Ameras, Use and Screening of Cameras, etc.) in the judgment of the court below, the defendant and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have taken the body of the victim after seeking consent from the victim.

Even though the victim was aware of the fact of photographing, the victim did not demand the defendant not to take photographs, to criticize the defendant's act of photographing, or to delete the photographs.

Therefore, the defendant's act of photographing the victim's body is not against the victim's will.

B. A prosecutor 1) With respect to the charge of quasi-rape and injury resulting from quasi-rape among the part not guilty of the lower judgment, the victim was in the state of mental disorder or failing to resist at the time of each of the above crimes.

In addition, there is no consent to engage in the act of gender relationship and similarity with the defendant at the time of each of the above crimes.

B) With respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”), among the acquitted parts of the lower judgment, the Defendant taken the victim’s body as a dynamic image and transmitted the photograph to another person by cutting the dynamic image. Since the photograph taken by cutting the dynamic image has reproduced graphic information in the screen between a specific net of the video, it is recognized as identical to the dynamic image as to the specific net order. Therefore, since the Defendant’s act was actually transmitted a part of the dynamic image, it constitutes providing another person with the dynamic image. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, confiscation, social service, and forty hours of attending the course of sexual assault treatment) is unreasonable as it is too unfortuned.

2. Determination of the accused case

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, but the lower court stated detailed reasons.