All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (3 million won in punishment, 40 hours in order to complete the program) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor are also examined.

The Defendant committed the instant crime by entering a female toilet in a planned way to take a balthic image of women, and the Defendant appears to have caused a considerable sexual humiliation and mental pain due to the instant crime, and the Defendant did not agree with the victim, and did not recover any damage to the victim, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime of this case, the Defendant’s primary offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, and the frequency of the crime was limited to once, and it appears that there was no additional crime other than the instant case, etc., are favorable to the Defendant.

In full view of all the circumstances that are favorable to the above unfavorable circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health conditions, home environment, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit (in the meantime, although the prosecutor did not assert as grounds for appeal, he/she is sentenced to forfeiture of evidence No. 1 as in the lower court’s judgment. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate a thing that meets the requirements for forfeiture depends on the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do515, Sept. 4, 2002).