All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete a program, three years of employment restriction order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (ten months of imprisonment, forty hours of order, three years of employment restriction order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant was fully aware of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s parents promised to lead the Defendant, and the Defendant’s wife is going against. The instant crime ought to be imposed in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent judgment (i.e., a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which became final and conclusive, and the fact that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment at the time of each of the instant crimes is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, in light of the background of the crime, method of the crime, frequency of the crime, etc., which is very poor in view of the fact that the defendant took pictures of the appearance of many unspecified women in the female toilet where the defendant invadedd or intruded into female toilets to view it as a tiltile. The defendant committed a part of the crime while being tried for the same kind of crime, despite the fact that the defendant was under control during the crime on September 20, 2019, and the victims whose identity was confirmed want to be punished by the defendant's severe punishment.

The age, character and conduct of the defendant;