The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty despite the fact that the physical part of the victim's body taken by the defendant of the summary of the grounds for appeal was not guilty of sexual humiliation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the remaining judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who is the chief of the electricity at the Nam-gu apartment management office in Gwangju metropolitan area, and the victim C (V, 35) is the resident of the said apartment.

On June 8, 2016, at around 10:30 on June 10, 2016, the Defendant saw that the victim was her her son, her son, her son, and her son, and her son, her son, her son, and her son, her son, and her her son, her her son, and her her son.

As a result, the defendant taken the body of the victim who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a camera or other similar mechanism.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds, based on the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1) Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Etc. of Sexual Crimes, which punishs an act of photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will, using a camera or other similar mechanism, is to protect the victim’s sexual freedom and without permission.

Whether the photographing body of a victim constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame” is objectively taken into account whether it constitutes a body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame from the perspective of the general and average person of the same gender and age group as the victim, as well as the victim.