2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

(1) On May 10, 2015, F around 17:57, female balone photographs, sexual images, etc. were transmitted from the Defendant’s cell phone to the victim’s cell phone.

② From the investigation process to the court of the court below, the victim continued to show his cell phone images and videos with obscene images from around 2013, including the above pictures.

“A consistent statement is made to the effect that it is “.”

(3) The same shall apply where the defendant himself/herself does not know about the use of F and the victim transmits his/her photograph from his/her mobile phone to his/her mobile phone in the future.

“The Defendant asserted to the effect that it was “,” but on May 10, 2015, around 20 minutes prior to the instant crime, sent F message to the victim’s cell phone (the 35th page of the investigation record). The Defendant used F to exchange obscene pictures or videos with the author from time to time, and, in particular, sent the same photograph as the photograph sent by the damaged person to M around May 8, 2015 (the 307 page of the investigation record), by the police, the Defendant sent the victim’s cell phone pictures or shot videos to the victim’s cell phone (the 307 page of the investigation record).

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated “” (357 pages of investigation records), the above argument by the Defendant is difficult to accept.

In full view of the above circumstances, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant sent the picture, etc. that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the victim's cell phone (the statement of the witness E against the above recognition is in conflict with the victim's interests and the interests with the defendant.