logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노1904
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) A misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are women’s birth, which does not objectively constitute “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame” from the perspective of an average general public.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is improper for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information.

2. Determination

A. Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Etc. of Sexual Crimes, which punishs the act of photographing another person’s body against his/her will, using the judgment camera or other similar devices with similar functions as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, is to protect the freedom of sexual freedom and without permission of the victim of personality chain.

Therefore, whether the photographed body constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame” should be objectively determined by taking into account whether the body falls under the body that may cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame from the perspective of an average person of the same gender group as the victim, as well as the degree of clothes, pictures, exposure, etc. of the victim in question, as well as the background leading up to the photographer’s intent and the place of photographing, the place of photographing, the degree of photographing, the image of the photographed body, the image of the taken body, and the importance of the specific body parts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007, Sept. 25, 2008). In other words, when the defendant duly adopted and examined the evidence, it is reasonable to consider the following circumstances.

arrow