The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) cannot be deemed to have taken pictures of the body part of the victim’s bridge while the victim was aware that he/she was physically seated with young female, thereby causing sexual humiliation or shame.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court deemed that the body part of the Defendant’s body taken by the Defendant constituted part of the body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame. In light of the records of the instant case, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

B. In particular, the Defendant stated in the investigative agency that “I have taken a photograph to explain that I would sit (victim) to arouse the quality of female-friendly job offering E.” The Defendant sent the victim’s photograph to E in fact on the second-time police interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 40 pages of evidence) and then sent the victim’s photograph taken to E from E, and then “I will see” and “I will see”.

The message, “,” etc. was received.

C 대화 창 캡 쳐 자료, 출력자료( 증거기록 65 면) 이러한 사진 촬영의 목적 및 경위, 촬영 부위 등을 감안하면, 공소사실 기재 사진은 피해자를 향한 성적 의도를 분명하게 드러내는 가운데 그러한 의도와 결부된 특정한 신체 부위를 겨냥하여 촬영한 것으로서 피해자의 수치심 특히 피해자도 수사기관에서 ‘ 피고인이 촬영한 사진으로 수치스럽고 기분이 나빴다’ 고 진술하였다.

It is reasonable to view that there is sufficient reason to induce B.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.