Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 28, 2016, around 09:53, the Defendant intruded the women’s toilets located in Gststa City F, Gstamarket, and taken the body of the women in the name unexplodedd, who viewed the booming side column of the toilet, as a mobile phone.

2. On July 2, 2016, at around 23:40, the Defendant intruded into the I Gameland Ganob female toilets located in H in the Gu and America, and taken the body of the victim J (one name, half, and twenty-three years old) who sees the defense side of the toilet as a cell phone.

Accordingly, the Defendant took photographs of another person's body against his will using a mobile phone with the function of a camera which may intrude into the building twice and may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to J police officers;

1. Seizure records, etc.;

1. On-site photographs;

1. cd;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in relation to the attachment of Gmarket photographs, which is a criminal scene, and results of suspect mobile phone digital evidence analysis);

1. Article 14 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes under the corresponding provisions of the Act on Criminal Crimes (the occupation of photographing and photographing cameras), Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of intrusion upon each building), and the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is not good in light of the number of crimes in this case. However, it is not good in view of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and reflects the wrongness, that the defendant is the first offender and has started working life due to the first generation of society, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in this case, including the frequency of crimes, the age and character of the defendant, the character and conduct, the environment, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.,

The judgment is a sex offense subject to registration.