2. The crime of this case is an offense committed by the Defendant, who was discovered at night when the Defendant scam in a female toilet and attempted to photograph or take the body of female women in the next partitions, and thus, was disheated in the attempted crime, and thus, the Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and is in violation of depth, that the defendant was the first offender, that the defendant was only the victim of the attempted crime, and that the remaining victims did not reach an agreement because their identity was not verified. In addition, if the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are taken into account equally, it does not seem that the court below's punishment against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below [Application of the Act] is corrected to “Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes,” “Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Each Sexual Crimes,” “Article 15, Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Article 15, Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes,” and each of the options of fines”.