The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for six months, suspended execution for two years, confiscation, and sexual assault therapy for 80 hours) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The Defendant, while working as an employee in E, took a photograph of a large number of female victims for about 30 days. Due to the characteristics of E in many cases where she takes a large amount of shea and shopping, it is likely that she may cause a large sense of shame to female victims, and she may cause a big trouble to consider hera, and when she takes a video taken by the Defendant, she taken a considerably detailed image of the victims by using a carmer’s flash function, and thus, she is disadvantageous to the Defendant, sufficient to give a large sense of sexual humiliation to the victims.

However, the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, that there is no part to identify the victims, that there is no circumstance that the defendant exhibits or spreads the photograph taken by him, that the defendant deposited KRW 1 million for the only victim whose identity is specified, that the defendant was the first offender who has no criminal power, and that the social relationship of the defendant is relatively clear is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and records, there is no change in circumstances to determine different sentences from the lower court. As such, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.