The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (3 million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been taken by the Defendant using the video function of the cell phone to view the victim D (tentative name) in a female toilet of the commercial building at night, and its nature is poor in light of the place and method of the crime.

Considering the fact that the victim appears to have suffered a considerable mental impulse due to the instant crime, the criminal liability of the defendant is not against the defendant.

However, the Defendant, while recognizing the instant crime from the investigative agency, runs counter to the mistake, and again does not commit such a crime.

There are many things.

In the past when the defendant is in a trial, the injured party does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual agreement with the victim.

It seems that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, and it seems that the video recorded by the Defendant is not distributed externally.

There is no criminal offense against a defendant and no criminal offense exceeding a fine.

It is clear that there is a certain occupation for the defendant, and that the family members and branch members of the defendant appeal to the defendant's wife.

In full view of the factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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