[2] The case holding that the court below's order to disclose the case for nine or five years of imprisonment, and the order to attach an electronic tracking device for six years after reversing the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the defendant of a sexual crime subject to a child or juvenile "the order to attach an electronic tracking device for 15 or five years of imprisonment" does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration

[2] The case holding that the court below's order to disclose the case for 9 years and 5 years, and the order to attach an electronic tracking device for 6 years after reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the defendant of a sexual crime subject to a child or juvenile to "an order to attach an electronic tracking device for 15 years and 5 years" does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, we affirm the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case for the reasons indicated in its holding, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the facts contrary

2. The main sentence of Article 38(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provides that a court shall order a sex offender falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph to disclose information, such as name, age, address and actual place of residence, physical information, pictures, and summary of sex offenses against children and juveniles through an information and communications network, shall be sentenced simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case against a child or juvenile: Provided, That the proviso to the same paragraph shall be determined as not to issue an order for disclosure in exceptional cases where a fine is sentenced for a sex offense case against a child or juvenile, where a defendant is a child or juvenile, or where a defendant is a child or juvenile, or where a court

For the following reasons, the lower court sentenced the disclosure order pursuant to the main sentence of Article 38(1) of the above Act by deeming that there is no exception to the proviso of the same Act, and sentenced the disclosure order pursuant to the main sentence of the same Article. In other words, considering the circumstance where the victim does not indicate any details to identify the victim in the process of executing the disclosure order pursuant to the statutes, there is no reason to treat the victim differently from the case of other sexual crimes solely on the ground that the victim is his/her father/child. Moreover, restricting the fundamental rights of the defendant or his/her family by disclosing personal information for the public interest purpose of preventing sex offenses against children and juveniles may not be deemed to violate the excessive prohibition principle. In addition, the Defendant’s risk of recidivism is recognized

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the purport of the relevant law, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for exception

3. In applying the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change to a defendant, determination as to whether a sentence imposed is disadvantageous to a defendant should be based on the severity of punishment under the Criminal Act, but not on the basis of whether it is disadvantageous to a defendant in light of the entire order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12967, Feb. 11, 2010). Meanwhile, the electronic monitoring system under the Act on the Electronic Monitoring of Location Monitoring of Specific Sexual Offenders is distinguishable from punishment as a kind of security measure aimed at protecting people from sexual crimes by taking an additional measure that enables the physical attachment of an electronic device capable of verifying their location by tracking their behaviors for the prevention of recidivism and re-social rehabilitation through correcting personality and behavior (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6061, Sept. 10, 2009).

In this purport, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that ordered the defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an electronic device (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") to attach an electronic tracking device for 15 years and 5 years, and cannot be said to have violated the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

4. The remaining grounds of appeal are asserted in the grounds of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the grounds of appeal or that the court below did not consider it as the subject of judgment ex officio, and it does not constitute a legitimate grounds of appeal, and further, ex officio examination does not affect the judgment.

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)