The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, took a photograph at a considerably away place from the bathing beach where the physical exposure was made open to the public, the victim who was sitting in the luxic uniform and was living in the lux. The telegraph of the victim taken in this case does not constitute “the body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame.”

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of 5 million won, 40 hours’ order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

(1) Article 14(1) of the Act provides that “The body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame” 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” should be objectively determined by taking into account whether the body constitutes “the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame” from the perspective of the general and average person of the victim, such as the victim’s sex and age group, and the degree of exposure, as well as the circumstances leading up to the victim’s intent of photographing, the place and distance of photographing, the image of the taken body, and the characteristic of the specific body part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007, Sept. 25, 2008).