성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On April 22, 2013, at around 12:40, the Defendant got on a bridge of the victim (e.g., 18 years old), 18 years old, 17 years old, and 17 years old.
Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of another person who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using mobile phone cameras against his will.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the victim and the police statement of each police officer;
1. Article 13 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) concerning the crime under the relevant provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;
1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;
1. In light of the method and content of the crime of this case in the sentencing ground of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, although the nature of the crime is not weak, it is ordered as ordered in consideration of the following factors: the defendant's mistake is recognized, the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and all of the sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc.
In principle, to the extent that a fine is imposed on a defendant who committed a sexual crime as to whether to impose an order to complete a program, an order to complete a program should be imposed. However, in the summary order of this case, the defendant did not impose an order to complete a program on the defendant, and only the defendant requested a formal trial, the defendant does not impose an order to complete a program in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8736, Sept. 27, 2012). As to the criminal