(영문) 대법원 2021.3.25. 선고 2021도749 판결

1. The crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) is established by photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will by using cameras, etc. The term “recording” refers to the act of inputting video information into films or storage devices located in cameras or other devices equipped with similar functions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1067, Jun. 9, 201). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the crime of violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1067, Jun. 1, 201; 201Do4144, Jun. 1, 2011; 2014; 201Do4165, Apr. 1, 2015) was committed without discovering the victim’s consent to taking pictures, etc.

2. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the charges of this case on the ground that, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s grandchildren, including the mobile phones, who suffered from the mobile phones, went beyond the toilet partitions in which the victim reported his melted, and that the victim’s image was seen on the screen of the aforementioned mobile phone with its function, the Defendant commenced specific and direct acts to input video information on the mobile phone, such as specifying the subject of filming as the victim and focusing on the victim through the cameras of the mobile phone, etc., on the ground that it was recognized that the Defendant started to commit the crime of violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (i.e., taking pictures using camera, etc.).

3. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the commencement of commission in the crime of violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (ameras photographing).

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.