The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s unfair order to restrict employment is unreasonable to order a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. to restrict employment for five years.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant, while working for a telecomer’s employee, has intruded into the guest rooms administered by unspecified victims several times to meet his or her sexual satisfaction, taken the victim’s body as a video, taken the victim’s body as a very close range to the victim, taken the victim’s chest exposed to his or her name during the photographing. In light of the object and circumstances of the crime, the number of times, etc., the crime was very poor; the Defendant appeared in a planned form, such as checking and practice by mixing the victim’s body in the guest room; the Defendant stated that there was approximately 30 times the total number of pictures at an investigative agency; the Defendant continued to commit a crime committed on December 4, 2017, which was rejected once against a male customer; and the Defendant’s punishment is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and divided them in depth, and the Defendant does not seem to have distributed images taken by the victims on the Internet website, etc., and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for those subject to a fine of KRW 300,000 as a result of the violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.