1. Article 42(1) and Article 43(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that a person whose judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive due to a sex offense subject to registration shall submit personal information to the head of the competent police office within 30 days from the date the conviction becomes final and conclusive, and Article 42(2) of the same Act provides that where a person subject to registration is convicted of a sex offense subject to registration, the court shall inform the person subject to registration of the fact that he/she is a person subject to registration and the existence

As such, since a court does not separately impose the duty to submit personal information on a person subject to registration, a court that pronounced a judgment of conviction is only meaningful to inform the person subject to registration that he/she is unable to submit personal information.

Therefore, we cannot accept the grounds of appeal to the effect that the basic provision on the registration of personal information related to the facts charged of this case is unconstitutional because it excessively infringes on the right to self-determination and the right to equality.

2. Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court did not have intention to commit a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (use and photographing of cameras, etc.) is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

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