The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although A. 41 A.I.D. (hereinafter “A. 1”) did not provide each of the instant crimes, the lower court erred as it confiscated it.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment (the punishment of 1 year of suspended execution in April, 40, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures, 1, 2 times of perjury) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was an error in the number of evidence No. 1, Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, “the crime of taking pictures using a camera, etc.” refers to the number of equipment by reaching the input of video information on the body in a film or storage device contained in a camera or any other device equipped with similar functions (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10677, Jun. 9, 201). Thus, the storage device contained in a camera shall be deemed to have been provided for the crime. Even if it is a separate storage device not contained in a camera, if the video information on the body taken by a camera is stored immediately in the storage device without any separate manipulation, such storage device shall also be deemed to have been provided for the crime.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged: (i) Amphone has a function as a storage device; (ii) the Defendant used Amphones and Amphones to the same account; and (iii) the Defendant’s photograph and screen pictures taken using Amphone’s camera functions are stored immediately interlograms without any operation even though Amphones are stored. As such, not only Amphones but also Amphones shall be deemed to have been offered for each of the crimes of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9542, Sept. 10, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that forfeited Amphones from the Defendant does not require strict proof.