The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal is that the court below's judgment that did not constitute the recording of body that could cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame in light of the following: (a) the victims of the instant crime committed in which the Defendant was boomed and boomed by 10 women; and (b) the victims stated that they caused a sense of shame. In light of the above, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

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, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will, is to protect the victim’s sexual freedom and freedom not taken without permission. As such, whether the recorded body constitutes “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” objectively, should be determined individually, by taking into account whether the body falls under “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” of the victim’s sex like the victim, age group’s general and average person, as well as the degree of exposure, as well as the circumstances leading up to the photographer’s intent, location and degree of exposure, and distance of photographing, image of the taken body body, and whether the given body body part has been emphasized or not.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). B.

The court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant taken photographs from victims at approximately 3-4 meters away from the subway platform, and the photographs of this case usually take place at the public place.