The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal was that the Defendant did not commence the commission of the crime of taking pictures, such as cameras, since the Defendant was aware of the victims and ceased to take photographs without focusing on the victims through mobile phone cameras.

2. Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides for the crime of photographing the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or other shame, using a camera, etc. In this context, the term “recording” refers to the act of inputting image information on the body of another person into a film or storage device contained in a camera or any other device equipped with similar functions (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10677, Jun. 9, 201). Thus, in order to determine that the commencement of its execution is one of the objects to be taken, and the specific and direct act of inputting the image information on the body of another person ought to be commenced, such as where the body of another person is focused on the body of the latter through the siren of mechanical devices such as a camera, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do12415 Decided November 10, 201). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant commenced a specific and direct act in order to input video information on the body of the victims and started the commission of the crime of taking pictures, such as a camera, etc.

① The victim D stated in the court of the court below that “the sound to start a camera images was wrong at first time.” However, after approximately five to six minutes, the victim E also stated that “the sound to close a motion picture was “conscept,” going to its windows by viewing that the sound to close the motion picture was reliable, and the victim E was also the Defendant.”