The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant did not have an intention to attempt access against the victim’s will, since the Defendant did not have taken photographs or attempted access against the victim’s will, and the Defendant did not know that the Defendant’s action was contrary to the victim’s intent.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, the victim expressed his/her intent to refuse to photograph and access the Defendant, consistently in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court.

In addition, the defendant India investigative agency does not refuse to do so to act such as the defendant's refusal to do or selling.

the Corporation.

In full view of the fact that the victim made a statement, the victim also requested the welfare center that he had worked to handle the grievance in relation to the facts charged of this case, and the defendant filed a complaint, the facts charged of this case is recognized that the defendant repeats the act of complying with the victim's attempt to approach continuously against the victim's will, and thus, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, it seems that the victim suffered mental distress due to the instant crime, and the difficulty in working life appears to have been considerable, and that the Defendant did not receive a written request from the victim.

On the other hand, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant is highly disabled and has difficulty in family conditions, and that the defendant is elderly.

In full view of these circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant argument, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.