logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019노1455
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (deficiencies) is the direct situation where the victim’s body can be taken up immediately at any time, even if the Defendant’s toilet which the victim sits is not a victim, even if the Defendant did not implement the Handphone, and thus, it should be deemed that the Defendant commenced the commission of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “the crime of taking pictures using camera, etc.”) (hereinafter “the crime of taking pictures using camera, etc.”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at around 15:00 on January 24, 2019, was coming to the rest of the public toilet located on the first floor of the building C located in the regular Eup/Myeon, the Defendant was unable to take a photograph of the victim by inserting the Defendant’s cell phone in a narrow space where the victim D (a name, leisure, 45 years old) reported the melting side. The Defendant was discovered from the victim, and the victim was discovered to walk the Defendant’s cell phone to walk the Defendant’s cell phone.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to take another person's body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a mobile phone camera, against his will, and attempted to take a photograph of another person's body.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it, since it was difficult to view that the Defendant had started to commit the crime of using camera, etc. photographs.

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s execution of photographing the Defendant’s body with the intent to photograph another’s body by taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone.

arrow