The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant signed the protocol of seizure of voluntarily produced articles on February 19, 2017, on the ground that there was no yellow situation at the time of the occurrence of the event. However, even though the Defendant opposed to the seizure of mobile phones, as the police officer forced seizure, the seizure of the Defendant’s mobile phone was illegal, and the seizure of the Defendant’s mobile phone was also unlawful, and all of the secondary evidence collected based on

Nevertheless, the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence and admitting it as evidence of guilt.

B. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, took a face of another person’s sexual intercourse with a net view, but did not take such a face with an unsound intent to cause the destruction or sense of shame to the other person. Thus, the Defendant merely constitutes an act infringing upon privacy.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 80 hours, and the lecture attendance order for sexual assault treatment 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant voluntarily submitted the mobile phone to the police officer on February 19, 2017 can be acknowledged. As such, the seizure of the Defendant’s mobile phone is lawful, and all evidence collected based on the aforementioned is admissible.

① The police officer F, who was dispatched to the scene on February 19, 2017, was present at the trial court of the first instance, and “The Defendant was uneasy and uneasy, and uneasy and uneasy, for the victims who reported on the first floor, and was listed on the eightth floor,” but the police officer denied his/her photographing while releasing the lock from the cell phone; however, it is possible to restore the images even if the images are deleted.

In the end, the fact of shooting was recognized, and the image at the time of shooting was 4 times as studio.

Although the defendant made a statement that he is a mobile phone used at the time, he does not have any particular resistance.