The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The victim gave his consent to take photographs of his body, and thus, the victim took photographs against his will.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of KRW 6 million, the amount of KRW 4 million, and the amount of 40 hours ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. On the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the victim B (a) does not agree to the investigation agency’s “the video page”.

In fact-finding, "the defendant was unaware of the fact-finding," and "the police became aware of the fact-finding video that there was no warning about the sexual relation, and the police became aware of the call.

The police stated that it was the first time when the statement was made by the police (No. 83 of the evidence record). The victim F (tentative name) also did not think at all the investigative agency about the sexually related video.

The defendant did not have any video talked with the video, and the defendant did not know about the fact that the video was stamped, and there was no consent thereto.

The fact that there was a dynamic image was also known to the police by talking about it (the 123,124th page of the evidence record). In light of the statements of the victims as above, the victims consented to the physical photographing.

It is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion of facts.

B. It is recognized that there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant had no record of punishment for the same offense, the fact that the victim F does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the video recorded appears to have not been leaked to the outside.

However, in full view of the unfavorable circumstances such as the taking of a specific body part against the victim’s will and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.