카메라등이용촬영죄에 대한 판례 해석과 규율 공백의 문제점 -촬영의 대상물을 중심으로-

Abstract

The Act On Special Cases Concerning The Punishment Of Sexual Crimes has been amended several times and has developed a very tight and strict regulatory system for illegal Taking Photographs. This was done as an immediate response to events that shocked our society, such as the so-called ‘revenge porn case’ and ‘room N case’. However, the Supreme Court has adhered to the principle of strict construction, which is the main principle of criminal law interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled that only cases in which a person’s body is directly photographed with a camera in Article 14 of the Act On Special Cases Concerning The Punishment Of Sexual Crimes should be punished for the crime of using a camera, and that it is a prohibited inferential interpretation to punish cases such as computer monitor screens. However, the problem arises at this point. There are a number of cases in which the principle of prohibited inference does not apply even though the crime and the degree of damage are not different. This paper concludes that the Supreme Court’s interpretation is valid, and then examines the gaps in punishment that may occur if this interpretation is uniformly applied. The paper examined the following cases: first, when the object photographed through the camera is an image; second, when the image screen is distributed or reproduced; third, when the object photographed is an image and the image or reproduction is possessed, purchased, stored, or viewed; fourth, when the image screen is edited; and fifth, when the victim mistakenly sends a photo or video to a message or email and it is captured or rephotographed on the screen. We argued that Article 14 needs to be revised to address these gaps in punishment, and that the direction should be revised to these forms i.e., "photographs and reproductions that are not inherently different from the original photographs and are recognized as identical".