The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The six-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Although there is evidence of reinforcement of taking pictures using camera, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On September 2014, the Defendant taken a photograph of the victim’s name-free female studio 10, Daegu Northern-gu, 2014 using mobile phone camera function.

In the middle of the same month, the Defendant took a photograph of the victim’s name in a place where the victim’s unsatisf was satisfyed with his clothes.

In this respect, the defendant taken the body of the victim who could cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame through a camera twice against his will.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the aforementioned confession constitutes evidence of a kind unfavorable to the Defendant, on the grounds that: (a) the photograph shown through “report on the result of the analysis of digital evidence of personalphones”, etc. is irrelevant to this part of the facts charged; and (b) the “F’s statement made by the police” cannot be deemed as evidence of reinforcement because it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement is sufficiently consistent with the Defendant’s statement even though the police, the prosecution, or the lower court led to the confession of this part of the facts charged; and (c) the said confession constitutes evidence of a kind unfavorable to the Defendant;

(c)

(1) The reinforcement evidence of confession is limited to the extent that it can be recognized that the confession of the accused is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized.