Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, etc. of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, applicable pursuant to Article 49(1) and Article 50(1) proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, characteristics of the offender, such as the risk of recidivism, such as the type, motive, process, result, seriousness of the crime, etc., the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s injury due to the disclosure order or notification order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes subject to registration, and the effect of protecting the victims of sexual crimes subject to registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). Meanwhile, in light of the contents and purport of the aforementioned provisions, the aforementioned exceptional order should not be determined separately from the disclosure order and the grounds for disclosure order, if any.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that there are no special circumstances to prevent the Defendant from disclosing or notifying personal information, and sentenced the Defendant to an order to disclose or notify personal information for two years.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, criminal record and the type, motive, criminal process, result, etc., the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the disclosure and notification

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)