The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Ameras, Use and Screening of Cameras, etc.) due to physical photographing against the will of the person subject to filming among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (a long-term one year and six months of imprisonment, and a short-term one year, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of the lower judgment was rendered by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant fell under “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and thus, was sentenced to an irregular sentence pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act, but the Defendant did not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 more than that of the lower court, so the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged was that the Defendant was in a relationship between the victim B (n, 17 years of age) and the first police officer from May 2019 to February 2020.

On December 2, 2019, the Defendant taken photographs of the victim’s body body body and resistance against the victim’s will, which might cause sexual humiliation or shame by using his mobile phone camera at the victim’s house located in the Seocho-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the following: according to the statement made by the victim's investigative agency and the letter sent by the victim to the defendant (the investigative record 430-431 pages), this part of the judgment of the court below is recognized to have taken the body of the victim without consent.