(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.2.7. 선고 2017노3551 판결

The Defendant is merely aware that a young female victim was seated, and thus, taken the body part of the victim’s bridge with the knowledge that he/she was faced, and thus cannot be deemed to have taken the body part that may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court deemed that the body part of the Defendant’s body taken by the Defendant constituted part of the body that could cause sexual humiliation or shame. In light of the records of this case, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine as claimed by the Defendant.

B. In particular, the Defendant stated in the investigative agency that he was able to explain that he would be seated by the victim (victim) in order to induce the quality of the victim-friendly appearance E. However, in fact, the Defendant sent the victim’s bucks photographs taken by the victim to E to C, and then received text messages, such as E, ‘welves', ‘welves', and ‘welves'. 2) In light of the purpose and circumstances of these photographs, the photograph as stated in the facts charged is sufficient to cause a sense of shame of the victim, as it took a photograph of a specific body part associated with such intent, among those clearly revealing the victim’s sexual intent.

3. Conclusion

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.