All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine is difficult to view that the physical part of the victim’s body that the defendant taken a video image with a mobile phone constitutes another person’s body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty amount, and 40 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant: (a) taken dynamic images against the victim, who was absent the victim from the victim and was sitting in the subway to the mobile phone; (b) at the time, the victim was suffering from very short bucks, and the Defendant appears to have been inside the victim’s bucks in the face of the bucks (257 page No. 257 of the evidence record); and (c) the Defendant also stated that “this photograph may be caused by sexual interest if the third party was investigated by the prosecution; and (d) the victim was taken as the victim, who was sexual humiliation, could have caused sexual humiliation” (Article 487 page 2 of the evidence record). In full view of the above, it is reasonable to view that the physical parts of the victim’s body taken by the Defendant constituted a body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of law.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, it is recognized that the circumstances such as the photographing of the motion picture only once, and the fact that there is no criminal record other than the fine for the crime of this type, are taken into account.

However, in full view of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was a public official, and there is no other special change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the sentence and the original court’s punishment as stated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.