The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each of the photographings Nos. 1 through 143 in the separate sheet of crime (hereinafter “crime list”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame,” but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the grounds for appeal, whether the recorded body constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame” under Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes shall be objectively determined by taking into account not only the victim’s clothes, pictures, degree of exposure, etc., but also the circumstances leading up to the photographer’s intent, the place and distance of photographing, the image of the taken body, and the importance of the specific body parts, etc., as a whole, in light of the following factors: (a) whether the recorded body constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame;” and (b) whether the body part of the other person’s body was sexually identical to the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8642 Decided November 27, 2008, etc.). According to the above legal principles, the health stand in this case, and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, in the case of each photograph of crime sight list, the damaged women suffered a short dose. However, in the above photographs, the body of the victimized women cannot be deemed to correspond to "the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame," and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable.