beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the fact of photographing a camera, etc.) and the video of related photographs, the defendant was found to have taken the body of the victim without the victim's consent, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the use of the camera, etc. among the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. On June 201, 201, the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is 1). On June 201, 201, the Defendant took the body of the victim, who was off and accumulated his clothes, using the Defendant’s mobile phone camera shooting function, in the Daejeon Seo-gu Glla, the residence of the victim C (V, the age of 45), around 22:00.
Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of the victim who could cause a sense of sexual shame by using the mobile phone camera photographing function against his will.
B) On October 2012, 2012, the Defendant committed a crime in the middle of the World Warman on which he was unable to know the trade name near the new shot Station on the new shot vibration in Daejeon, Daejeon, the Defendant taken the part of the victim’s body and the part of the body of the victim who was exempted from all the lower court by using the Defendant’s mobile phone camera photographing function. Accordingly, the Defendant taken the body of the victim who could cause a sense of sexual shame by using the mobile phone camera photographing function. 2) In light of each photograph, the lower court determined that the Defendant took the body of the victim who was able to cause a sense of sexual shame by taking advantage of the mobile phone camera photographing function. In so doing, the lower court appears to have cooperation with the victim in the photographing or the part on which the victim was covered by the Defendant. In addition to these facts, considering that the victim was in a relationship with the Defendant.