The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Defendant

(A) On May 12, 2015, the Defendant was aware of the fact that CCTV for crime prevention was installed in the Defendant’s house and that the Defendant was installed with the victim H CCTV. On May 13, 2015, when he/she had sexual intercourse with the victim, he/she taken the victim’s body against the CCTV.

The defendant did not photograph the body of the victim due to the CCTV against the victim's will, and did not have any intention to do so.

(B) On October 15, 2015, the Defendant did not photograph the appearance of the victim H in Kamera with the body body, and did not transmit the victim’s photograph to K, etc. with the cellular phone with the victim’s cell phone.

The Defendant only reported the form of a victim who was taken by CCTV and recorded the monitor image with a cell phone camera, and does not constitute “the case of photographing another person’s body” or “the case of photographing another person’s body” as prescribed by Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

(C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Use of Cameras, etc.) and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

The Defendant did not inflict any injury on the Victim H on September 23, 2015.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of the injury to the victim H among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds of the statement, etc. of the victim without credibility.

The defendant of special intimidation gets knife on October 12, 2015 and did not threaten the victim H.

Nevertheless, the lower court.