The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

(a) misunderstanding of facts: There was no intention.

B. Legal principles: The pictures of this case do not constitute images that have taken another person's body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame.

2. (1) The purpose of Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is to protect the sexual freedom and freedom not taken without permission of the victim of personality chain, which are to punish the act of photographing another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against his/her will, using a camera or other similar mechanism with similar functions.

Whether the recorded body of another person may cause a sexual humiliation or sense of shame should be objectively determined by taking into account whether the body falls under the body that may cause a sexual humiliation or sense of shame from the standpoint of the general and average persons of the same gender and age group as the victim, as well as the degree of exposure, etc. of the victim in question, as well as the background leading up to the photographer's intent, the place, degree and distance of photographing, the image of the photographer's photograph, the image of the photographer's photograph, and the importance of the specific body part.

(2) On September 25, 2008, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7007, Sept. 25, 2008). (2) In other words, the defendant taken photographs for many women from 2:00 p.m. to 5:50 p.m. on the day of the instant case, the defendant was found to have committed the instant crime in the high speed terminal station with subway No. 7 p.m. around 5:50 p.m., and the defendant was found to have prevented them from committing the instant crime in the subway No. 7 p.m. at around 5:50 p.m. on the same day.