The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On October 28, 2012, around 13:35, around 2012, the Defendant entering a structure, carried her leash in order to photograph women’s appearance in the toilet for women’s public toilets located in Gunsan-si C, and entered the said women’s public toilets into the said women’s public toilets with their leashion in order to photograph women’s appearance.

B. A violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”) committed an attempted crime, even though the Defendant, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (1), was intruded into female toilets, and tried to take the victim F (the age of 31) who was off from the third column and reported a melting side, by putting the Defendant’s arche, set up in the second column of the toilet, into a lower part of the partitions, and putting the arche of the Defendant, which was laid off from the 3rd column, into a lower part of the partitions, but did not commit an attempted crime.

2. According to the statement to the victim F investigation agency and on-site photographs, it is recognized that the defendant entered the second column of a female public toilet at the time specified in the above facts charged, and that the defendant's shape PC at the time exceeded half by the lower part of the partitions.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had attempted to photograph the body of the victim who sees a change from a toilet in order to take a woman’s appearance, such as the aforementioned charges, by entering a female toilet, using a string PC, and then had attempted to take the body of the victim who is viewed a change in appearance from a toilet, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently.

According to the results of digital evidence analysis, the defendant's motion picture or deleted file was not found at the time of the defendant's motion picture PC, and it seems that the motion picture recording function of solar PC at the time was operated.