The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, since the video information on the victim's body was not entered in the camera taken by the defendant, it cannot be viewed as a basis for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.

(2) Although the Defendant voluntarily surrendered, the lower court erred by failing to render a judgment on mitigation of self-denunciation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On September 18, 2014, at around 00:46, the Defendant: (a) viewed that the victim F (F) entered a toilet from the 2nd female toilet of the E second floor E in YD in YYD to be melted; and (b) taken the image of the victim by using the camera function of the cell phone extending out to the hands.

Accordingly, the Defendant taken the body of another person, which may cause a sense of sexual shame, against his will.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the macroscopic evidence.

(3) However, the lower court’s judgment is difficult to accept.

Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that "a person who takes photographs of another person's body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame against his/her will, using a camera or other similar mechanism, or distributes, sells, leases, or openly displays or shows such photographs to the public, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won." Thus, the above "crime of taking photographs, such as a camera, etc." in this provision shall be deemed to have reached the number of images or storage devices contained in a camera or any other device equipped with similar functions by reaching the entered state of image information on the corpse.

Supreme Court Decision 9 June 9, 201