The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) : The defendant did not have taken photographs as stated in the judgment of the court below, and is presumed to have taken pictures while lending a mobile phone to a person who borrowed a mobile phone.

No body shall be taken to cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame.

(2) Criminal facts No. 2 of the judgment of the court below: only the telegraph of the victim, and did not photograph the body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 3 million, the completion of a sexual assault treatment program, and the restriction on employment for one year against institutions related to children and juveniles) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defense counsel of the defendant as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, on the ground that the defendant's defense counsel made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal of this case.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(A) Even if the trial proceedings continued several times, the Defendant’s personal information, or any other evidence or material was not submitted. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit. The foregoing is without merit. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the said legal doctrine is based.