Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 02, 2017, at around 00:50, the Defendant, in a male and female public toilet located in Pyeongtaek-si B, had a portable phone with a camera functiond below the body of the victim D (V, 40 years old), in order to take the image of the victim D (V, 5 years old) who was reported melting in male and female partitions, and attempted to take the victim back, but the Defendant did not discover, sound, and take out the body of the victim, and did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statements of E and F;

1. The investigation report (request for the analysis of digital evidence of suspect mobile phones) and digital evidence analysis appraisal report were dissatisfied with the legality of the seizure of the defendant's cell phone at the police investigation stage, but the investigation agency later returned the cell phone to the victim, and the investigation agency appears to have requested digital evidence analysis by seizing the cell phone from the defendant again in accordance with the seizure warrant issued on December 18, 2017. Thus, it is admissible as legitimate evidence.

In the investigation report (in the case of a mobile phone suspect's cell phone country and digital evidence analysis result), investigation report (verification of results of digital evidence analysis), investigation report (in the case of deletion of suspect interrogation protocol), investigation report (in the case of a activated camera function), request for cooperation in the investigation (in the case of a 112 report processing statement) and response (in the case of a 112 report processing statement).

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the warrant of search and seizure (the warrant of search and seizure), the protocol of seizure (the page 52 pages of the investigation records), the evidence of seizure (the page 53 of the investigation records), the list of seizure (the page

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not contain the toilet partitionss below which a person who has suffered damage to his/her portable phone, and there was no fact that he/she tried to take the Defendant’s appearance in front.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed prior to the determination, the Defendant 1 laid down the victim by inserting a cell phone at around 00:50 on December 02, 2017.