The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant to the punishment of a fine of seven million won (a fine of seven million won, confiscation, or an order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

However, the phrase “the crime of photographing Kameras, etc.” under Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes refers to the case from which video information about the body is input into films or storage devices contained in a camera or any other machine equipped with similar functions, thereby running up to the number of pages.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10677, Jun. 9, 2011). We examine the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's cell phone does not have to be taken normally due to non-explosion, and the file (i.e., "IMG-4655.MG" file (hereinafter "MG") and the toilet floor and walls among the 71st attached CDs attached to the evidence record are stored in a file containing the victim's location and play (i.e., "IMG-4656.MG file" file among the above CDs). However, it cannot be seen that (ii) the part that can be seen as a file is taken in some form, and (iii) the file can not be seen as a "the victim's body body part that could cause sexual humiliation or shame with the victim's body part that can cause a sense of shame."

Furthermore, since the Defendant did not confirm the images that were discovered while photographing a motion picture, it is not possible that other motion pictures than the above files have been taken, and even according to the results of digital evidence analysis, there is no other motion pictures taken and stored with respect to the victim except the above files.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that of the defendant.