The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that a photograph taken by a defendant of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles reveals part of the face and arms of a victim of a chain at the right edge, and the subject is not identified as the victim, and the body of the victim is not properly emphasized, it cannot be deemed that the body taken by the defendant of a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is taken.

In addition, the defendant taken the above pictures with the victim's explicit or implied consent.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the facts acknowledged by the court below, and the following additional circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant taken the body that may cause sexual humiliation or shame without the victim’s explicit or implied consent.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Since the photograph taken by the defendant shows a considerable part of the face of the victim, the person who knows the victim seems to be fully aware of the victim's face.

From the above photograph, the victim is enjoying in the bed and covered by the bed.

Although the victim's face and part of the arms were out of the past, the defendant and the victim were in the past sexual conduct.

The victim consistently stated in the investigative agency that the above photographing of the defendant would be against the victim's will until the court below rendered the judgment.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing, is a number of cases as indicated in its reasoning.