All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not have intended to take a picture of F with a cellular phone camera into female toilets.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of five million won or more, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of 40 hours) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the victim appeared in the court and stated the situation at the time; (ii) the structure and direction of the toilet; (iii) the process and shape of finding a mobile phone with a camera; and the actions taken after finding it; and (iv) the credibility of the statement can be recognized as consistent; (iii) the victim did not have access to the toilet until the victim entered the toilet; and (iii) the victim did not have access to the toilet even if the Defendant directly confirmed it; (iv) according to the above video, the victim was immediately coming from the toilet (the victim and Maju in the case where the victim entered the toilet again; and (r) the victim and she returned from the toilet again); and (v) the Defendant’s mobile phone with a mobile phone with a camera installed; and (v) the Defendant’s explanation to the effect that it is difficult to confirm the change in the situation at the time of providing guidance to the Defendant’s mobile phone to the extent that it is difficult to ascertain the situation of the Defendant’s.