When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. Around 14:00 on August 4, 2013, the Defendant taken a photograph by using a cell phone camera function with approximately 40 female victims who were in possession of approximately 40 parts of the lower body of the female victim who was in the Sknish uniform at the Sknish Skncheon-gu Skncheon-gu Skncheon-gu (Seoul High Court).

The Defendant taken the body of the victims who may cause sexual humiliation or shame by using the camera function of a mobile phone against their will.

2. Around 22:00 on August 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) taken a cell phone with the victim’s cell phone at home in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (n, 34 years of age); (b) taken the cell phone at home with the victim’s bath, and (c) taken the cell phone at his/her bathing room using the cell camera function of the mobile phone.

The Defendant taken the body of the victim who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using the camera function of the mobile phone against his will.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the records of seizure and the list of seizure, and report on investigation (for video and photographic investigations stored in suspect handphones);

1. Article 14 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Selection of fines for the crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed;

1. The fact that there was no agreement with the victims of reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1) of the Confiscation Criminal Act is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant all of the crimes of this case is recognized and against the defendant, and that there is no other criminal punishment except the punishment of a fine once due to the act of immigration around 2005, and is living together with his family.