The Defendant taken a photograph with a cell phone to verify the face of the person who did not take the Defendant’s face. The Defendant was also aware of the victim’s male was also included in H and the Defendant was satisfyed with a photo from satisfy and taken a photo.

The defendant is not a sexual self-defense but a photograph for the purpose of collecting evidence, so there is no intention to do so.

2. The crime under Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established when “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shames against his/her will, using a camera or other mechanical device equipped with similar functions, is taken” and does not require the purpose of meeting the sexual humiliation.

Examining the photograph taken by the Defendant, it constitutes “the body of another person, which may cause a sense of sexual shame” as the body of another person, is presumed to have been taken without the consent of the victimized male in light of the Defendant’s statement.

Although the defendant did not intend to meet his/her purpose, he/she may be found to have taken the body of another person, which may cause a sense of sexual shame, against his/her will, unless he/she taken the body of another person without consent to the transfer of another person.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.