The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Etc. of Sexual Crimes, which punishs an act of photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will by using a camera or other similar mechanism, is to protect the victim’s sexual freedom and without permission.

Therefore, whether the photographed body constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame” ought to be objectively determined by taking into account whether the body falls under the body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame from the perspective of the general average person of the victim’s age group, such as the victim’s age group, as well as the degree of the victim’s clothes, pictures, exposure, etc., as well as the circumstances leading up to the photographer’s intent and the place of photographing, the place of photographing, the degree of photographing, the image of the photographed body, the image of the photographed body, and the importance of the specific body parts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007, Sept. 25, 2008).

The Defendant, like the instant pictures in the judgment of the court below, taken the body parts of various women in bus or street, etc.

However, in the instant pictures, women's legs, turbanes, and women's chests, which are bus passengers, have emerged.

At the time, the Defendant took a photograph by using the so-called “Famera mix,” which does not sound at the time of filming, in close vicinity to the following side of the female.

The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that he taken the body part of a woman’s body, stating that “the Defendant taken the body part of the woman’s body with good body and good body.”

This fact is based on the above legal doctrine.