beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Nos. 1 to 7 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Considering the fact that not only the nature of the crime in light of the frequency and period of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, but also the degree of infringement of privacy is very serious, that the privacy is not infringed upon by the victims, and that the risk of recidivism is deemed to be reasonable, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too uneasible and unfair.
B. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant, who has no record of criminal punishment, other than a minor fine, is a person who has been sentenced to criminal punishment; (b) was aware of the method of linking IP camera with each of the instant crimes in a remote opportunity; (c) started to commit the instant crime in the first instance trial; and (d) was not a planned and intentional criminal act; (c) the Defendant’s family and the representative of the workplace wanting to take the Defendant’s preference; and (d) it is difficult to view that there is a risk of recidivism in light of the Defendant’s environment or ordinary character, such as the Defendant’s life, by comprehensively viewing that the parents who have inconvenienceed body and the head of the workplace, live in good faith, etc., the above punishment of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case was committed by accessing the IP camera installed by the defendant without access without permission, and then theft of another person's body or privacy or video recording of another person's body or privacy through the IP camera, in light of the content, method, circumstance, and degree of privacy invasion, etc. of the crime, not only the crime and criminal intent are very poor but also access more than 10,000 to the IP camera of another person for a longer period of about 2 years and 4 months, and more than 10,000 times for the same video files recorded and stored, and a considerable amount of damage to many and unspecified victims, including more than 8,500 persons, etc., and the defendant is entitled to access.