The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (misunderstanding of facts) did not have intended to photograph the body of the victim by using a camera as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence (unfair sentencing) of the lower court (one year of suspended execution in April, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures, and evidence No. 1) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the judgment.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of a case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime, the risk of recidivism, etc., while sentencing punishment for an individual sex offense case by the court, and Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall also apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and who have not been finally binding.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, and the following is examined.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.