[1] The method of determining whether a case constitutes "the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or shame" under Article 14-2 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof

[2] In a case where a part of a buckbuck bridge, which was revealed under the bucks of the women (the age of 18) seated next to a mobile phone camera in the bus at night, the case holding that the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 14-2 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof is recognized

[1] Article 14-2(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof, which punishs acts of photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will, is to protect the victim’s sexual freedom and freedom not taken without permission, by using a camera or other similar mechanism. Whether the recorded body constitutes “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame.” In addition, the determination should be made on a concrete, individual, and comparative basis by comprehensively taking into account not only the victim’s clothes, the degree of exposure, but also the circumstances leading to the photographer’s intent, the place and distance of photographing, the image of the taken body, and whether the given body part has emerged as a specific body part.

[2] In a case where the part of the buckbuck bridge, which was revealed under the bucks of the female (the age of 18) seated next to the mobile phone camera in the bus at night, was taken, the case holding that the crime of violation of Article 14-2 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof was established on the ground that the buckbuckbuck part constitutes "the body of another person which may cause sexual humiliation or shame" under Article 14-2 (

[1] Article 14-2 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof / [2] Article 14-2 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jung-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No1386 Decided July 23, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 14-2(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (hereinafter “the Sexual Exposure Act”) that punishs acts of photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against the latter’s will by using a camera or other similar mechanism, is to protect the victim’s sexual liberty and freedom not to be taken without permission. Thus, whether the photographed body constitutes “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” should be objectively determined by taking into account whether the body falls under “the body of another person,” such as the victim’s sex and age group’s general and average person’s body, such as the victim’s clothes, degree of exposure, etc., as well as the background leading up to the photographer’s intent, place and distance of photographing, image of the taken body board, and whether the body part has a specific body part.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the defendant, a male under 59 years of age, knee knebbbbbbbbbbbbs, which was revealed under the part of the victim's 18 years of age, seated immediately next seat at the seat of the 18-year-old female, using a mobile phone camera at a distance of about 30cm with the 30cm above. The court below determined that the part of the above victim's knee-kneebbbbbbbbbbs, which was revealed under the body of the above victim, constitutes "the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or humiliation" as provided in Article 14-2 (1) of the Sexual Exposure Act. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the aforementioned legal principles, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sexual b

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, unlike the instant case.

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)