A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, and forty hours of order to attend a course) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders, in the absence of special circumstances that would not disclose or notify the Defendant’s personal information.

2. Determination

A. In light of the sentencing guidelines, other sentencing cases, and judicial precedents on the appellate court’s sentencing judgment (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (it is written in detail in 3-5 pages of the original judgment) is justifiable even if the additional sentencing materials are added to the sentencing materials added in the trial, and is not easy to the extent that they should be reversed.

B. The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse provides that the disclosure of personal information of all persons who have committed a sexual crime in principle in order to defend our society from a sexual crime shall be exempted only where it is deemed that there are special circumstances that may not be an exception to such disclosure order. Here, whether the case constitutes “where there are special circumstances that may not disclose personal information” as the exception to the disclosure order should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness, etc. of the crime in question, characteristics of the crime such as the crime in question, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s injury due to the disclosure order or notification order, prevention of a sexual crime subject to registration, effect on the protection of victims of the sexual crime subject to registration, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). Each of the instant cases recognized by evidence, materials, etc. presented during the instant pleadings.