In particular, it is harsh that the court below ordered the defendant to disclose and notify personal information for three years.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant, who led to the instant crime, led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, did not have any record of criminal punishment, and did not seem to have disseminated the taken images.

However, for a long time, the Defendant had installed a television spacker portion or wall in a lodging room, and installed a mermeras in a public toilet, and taken pictures of a spacker located in a private sphere, such as the sexual intercourse with others (at other places, including viewing and storing the spacker in real time), the victims’ emotional harm seems to be considerably big, and the method of the crime is not sufficient to be closely planned in advance. The above crime needs to be strictly punished in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case; (b) the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Meanwhile, Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provide that a person who committed a sexual crime shall, in principle, be exempted from disclosure and notification of personal information of all persons who committed a sexual crime, only if it is deemed that there is a "special circumstance" that may not be exceptionally committed. The Defendant's age, occupation, social ties, risk of recidivism, circumstance and consequence of the sexual crime of this case, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s injury upon disclosure notification order.