The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, without recognizing that he/she is able to cause sexual humiliation or shame, taken photographs without intent; and (b) the body of the victim taken by the Defendant does not constitute physical parts that may cause sexual humiliation or shame; and (c) thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The court below held that the defendant's act constitutes an act of photographing another person's body against the victim's will, on the ground that ① the defendant's act was taken by emphasizing and photographing the telegraph of the victim who takes part of his body, like clothes; ② the degree of exposure, etc. when viewed in light of the standards set forth by the members of the society with sound common sense, it appears that the victim appears to have caused sexual humiliation or shame; ③ the victim also made a statement at an investigative agency that he caused sexual humiliation due to such photograph; ④ the protection of legal interests under Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes is "the victim's sexual freedom and without permission," on the ground that the protection of legal interests under Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes is "the victim's sexual freedom and without permission."

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and even if the public bathing beach is a bathing beach, if the victim's right to control the photographed material is lost and the risk of distribution is added to the photographed woman's photographed woman without his consent, the above determination by the defendant cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.