The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the intent to photograph and take photographs of the substance of the grounds for appeal, the degree of exposure of the victim, and the fact that physical parts, such as buckbucks, etc., of the victim taken by the defendant, have emerged, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the physical parts of the victim taken by the defendant constitute a body of another person that may cause sexual humiliation or shame, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Etc., which punishs “the act of photographing another person’s body against his/her will, using a camera or other mechanical device with similar functions, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” to protect the freedom of sexual freedom and without permission of the victim of personality chain.

Whether the body of another person, which may cause a sexual humiliation or sense of shame, constitutes “the body of another person” of the victim, should be objectively determined by taking into account whether the body falls under the body that may cause a sexual humiliation or sense of shame from the perspective of the general and average person of the same gender and age group as the victim, as well as the degree of clothes, pictures, and exposure of the victim, etc. In addition, taking into account not only the victim’s intent, but also the circumstances leading up to the photographer’s intent, the place, degree and distance of photographing, the image of the photographer taken, and the importance of a specific body part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do707, Sept. 25, 2008; 2015Do16851, Jan. 14, 2016).