The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) is established by photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will by using cameras, etc. In this context, the term “recording” means the act of inputting video information into films or storage devices located in cameras or other devices equipped with similar functions (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1067, Jun. 9, 201). Therefore, in cases where the offender did not discover the victim while investigating whether he/she was using a function of giving the victim to photograph the victim, it cannot be deemed that the offender committed the crime of violation of the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (i.e., taking pictures, such as cameras, etc.) by failing to prepare the victim to take photographs, or committed the crime of violation of the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do11145, Oct. 14, 2015).

2. The lower court: (a) held that the Defendant’s grandchildren, who suffered from a mobile phone, reported the change of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do449, Jun. 14, 2012; 2014Do8385, Nov. 13, 2014).

In light of the fact that toilets have been cut off with partitionss and the victim's appearance appears on the screen of the above mobile phone that has a carmer function, the defendant is specific and direct to input video information into the mobile phone, such as specifying the victim as the victim, and focusing on the victim through the camera of the mobile phone.