The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged, around 19:00 on July 6, 2012, the Defendant took photographs of the victims’ exposure pictures (hereinafter “the instant pictures”) such as taking pictures of the victim’s sexual organ exposed to the victim’s sexual organ at the Non-disclosure conference in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Cstein”) and keeping the files in the hard disc, such as taking photographs of the victim’s exposure pictures exposed to the victim’s sexual organ exposed to the victim’s sexual organ at the non-disclosure conference.

Since July 2014, around September 2014, the Defendant copied the hard disc containing the instant photograph files to E at the request of E from the Switzerland operated in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant provided the victim's body photographs taken by the victim's consent to cause sexual humiliation or shame after the fact against his will.

2. Determination:

A. Article 14(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in the instant case (a person who distributes, sells, leases, provides, or openly displays or displays photographs against his/her will even if they do not go against the will of the person subject to filming at the time of photographing shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won) is a penal provision newly established upon the amendment of the said Act by Act No. 11556 on December 18, 2012. Thus, if the photographs taken with the consent of the person subject to photographing are provided to another person before the arrival of June 19, 2013, the enforcement date of the said penal provision, such provision shall not

Therefore, as stated in the facts charged of this case, it is a question whether or not the defendant can be recognized that he provided the photographs of this case to another person at the time after June 19, 2013.

B. Determination 1) Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant is denied by the defendant, and each investigation report (to have a witness E telephone conversations and a witness E phone statement hearing is the defendant.