A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 31, 2016, at around 18:46, the Defendant installed a camera in the shape of the key form of the vehicle on the part of the body of the victim E (the son, 25 years old), who is a de facto parent, in a de facto marital relationship at the Defendant’s home toilet located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, to take a photograph of the body of the victim E (the son, who is a de facto marital relationship).

The Defendant taken the body of the victim, who might cause sexual humiliation or shame, against his will, using the camera.

2. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant, at around 23:20, installed a camera at the home toilets of the victim G (M, 31 years old), who was located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, in order to photograph the victim's body, and taken the victim's crypology, such as Paragraph 1, in order to photograph the victim's body.

The Defendant taken the body of the victim, who might cause sexual humiliation or shame, against his will, using the camera.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to G and E;

1. Images of each mermera;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Article 14 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes under the relevant Act on Criminal Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations as follows);

1. Article 16 (2) and (4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Order to attend lectures or Order to provide community service;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act is that the defendant took pictures of the victims of de facto marriage spouse’s daughters and actual wife’s sexual desire as the object of his/her sexual desire, and installing Mamermeras in his/her house toilets, etc., which is highly likely to be subject to criticism in light of the anti-humanity nature of the act, and such act appears to continue for a considerable period other than that stated in the facts charged.