Supreme Law "'leggings shoot', causing sexual shame"... Repatriation

The Supreme Court broke the case against the court of innocence, claiming that it could induce sexual shame against a man who secretly photographed the back of a woman wearing leggings, and destroyed the case for the purpose of guilty.

The first division of the Supreme Court reversed the court case, who convicted Mr. A, who was accused of violating the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence, and returned the case to the Uijeongbu District Law.

Earlier, in May 2018, Mr. A was handed over to trial on charges of secretly photographing the back of the victim B, who was about to get off the city bus, with his mobile phone.

The first trial pleaded guilty to Mr. A's charges and sentenced him to a fine of 700,000 won.

On the other hand, the second trial overturned the first trial, saying, "The leggings that the victim was wearing at the time are used as daily clothes beyond sportswear among women of the same age as the victim. Because she is a young woman wearing leggings, it cannot be said to be the object of sexual desire." It.

The Supreme Court turned it over again.

This is to the effect that even if the victim reveals a part of the body for his or her own convenience, no one else has the right to photograph it.

The Supreme Court said, "A body that can cause sexual desire or shame is not uniformly determined by a specific body part, but when shooting or being filmed in such a way, taking into account the context of the shooting and the result of the shooting, It means "if you can."

The judge also said, "At the time of the filming of this case, the victim was wearing a baggy top that goes down just above the hips and leggings bottoms that go down to the ankles, and the curvature from the hips to the calves and physical characteristics were revealed." "It could be a body that can cause sexual desire or shame, even if it's close to the body and reveals the curves of the hips and thighs."

At the time of the judgment of the appeal trial, the court attached a photograph as evidence to the judgment, and controversy over the'second offense' was raised.