(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.1.8. 선고 2018노5669 판결

The Defendant did not start the commission of the crime of taking pictures, such as a camera, since he was discovered to the victims and suspended the act of taking pictures while the Defendant did not focus on the victims through the mobile phone camera photographing.

2. Determination

Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is an offense established by photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or any other sense of shame, using a camera, etc., against the latter’s will. Here, “recording” refers to the act of inputting image data on the victim into 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, in order to determine that the implementation thereof is commenced, specific objects to be taken and focus on the victim’s body through the siren, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do12415, Nov. 10, 201; 201Do12415, etc.).

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant commenced a specific and direct act to enter the victims’ body image data into the crime of taking pictures, such as a camera, etc.

① At the court of the court below, the victim D stated that the sound to start a motion picture was wrong for the first time. However, after approximately five to six minutes of the sound to close the motion picture, the victim D stated that the sound to start and terminate the motion picture was panty, and that the victim E also stated that the sound to start and terminate the motion picture was panty in the court of the court below.

② On May 11, 2017, immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant stated that he was investigated on May 11, 201, and laid off and lost a mobile phone in the taxi on the road to the police station. However, the CCTV for crime prevention was taken by the Defendant at a location less than approximately 100 meters away from the instant telecom, and as a result of the investigation of the mobile phone voluntarily submitted by the Defendant, the video file was stored on May 10, 2017, and was deleted (the video file was stored on May 10, 2017).

③ The Defendant had access to the windows in a specified state of the body, thereby manipulating the camera in the direction of the body of the body of the victim. Even if the Defendant was unable to properly meet the direction of the body of the victim, and the body of the victim was within the scope of photographing the body of the body of the victim, the act of moving the camera in the direction of the body of the body of the victim was not only the act of directly expressing the intent of shooting, but also the act of directly expressing the body of others when the body was specified, unlike the act of simply turning the camera, but also the act of moving the camera in the direction of the body of the body of the victim is also highly likely to be input into the camera. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act constitutes a specific and direct act in preparation for photographing the body of others, as well as an act of entering the image information of others into the camera.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.