The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Grounds for appeal (legal scenarios);

A. In light of the legal principles, each Defendant’s act recorded in the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the lower court (not guilty as to the primary claim) is that the act of converting the image screen into the image file format through the scaming process, which is an act of converting the image image format into the image file, and does not involve any new act of photographing the original image, and rather, it can be evaluated that the act of photographing part of the video is identical to the case where the act of photographing the original image is carried out by editing it.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act of cutting down the files generated as above constitutes a case in which photographs taken by the body as constituent elements under Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 15977, Dec. 18, 2018; hereinafter “former Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) are distributed.

On a different premise, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged [the violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (Use/Recording of Cameras) due to distribution] is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture, order of education related to children and juveniles, etc. and three years of employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor (not guilty part)

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on each of the primary charges of this part on the ground that the Defendant’s taking of a part of the sexually related video images with the victim’s body does not constitute an act of directly photographing the victim’s body, and thus, the photographs capturing a part of the sexually related video images with the victim do not constitute a photograph of the victim under Article 14(1) and (2) of the former Sexual Violence Punishment Act.

B. Article 14(1) and 14(1) of the former Sexual Violence Punishment Act (amended by Act No. 1010, Mar.