All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. A person who filed an appeal against a defendant shall submit a written reason for appeal to the appellate court within 20 days from the date he/she is notified of the records of trial (Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and if the written reason for appeal is not submitted within the prescribed period, the appellate court shall dismiss the appeal by decision (Article 361-4(1) of the same Act). According to the records of this case, the defendant, despite being notified of the record of receipt by this court on July 19, 2017, failed to submit the statement of reason for appeal within the period for submitting the record of appeal. The petition of appeal does not contain any indication of reason for appeal in the petition of appeal and cannot find any other reasons for ex officio investigation (the defendant appointed a private defense counsel on September 6, 2017, and the above defense counsel submitted the statement of reason for appeal on September 8, 2017, which contains legal principles and unreasonable grounds for appeal, but the above written reason for appeal and each of the above arguments are not legitimate.

B. In light of the subject, degree, time, place, etc. of shooting recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the video taken by the defendant constitutes a photographing of “the body of another person, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame” as provided by Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and thus, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is just. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the Prosecutor’s appeal

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence (five million won in punishment, forty hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, confiscation) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The lower court did not change the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s determination, and comprehensively takes account of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments.