2. The defendant does not pay the above fine.

On December 29, 2015, from around 01:01 to 08:37 on the same day, the Defendant restricted the phone number display from B’s own cell phone C, and sent approximately 20 telephone calls from 01:01 to 08:37 on the same day to the mobile phone E of the victim D (V, 30 years of age), thereby causing “inciting and causing” and committing self-defense.

As a result, the Defendant reached the victim with the intent to arouse or satisfy his/her own or another person's sexual desire through a cellular phone, which is a communication medium, that causes sexual humiliation or aversion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written petition of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on provision of data;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to order the victim to complete the program does not seem to be light of the nature of the crime in light of sexual humiliation, the degree of displeasure, repetition, etc. of the crime. However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, and conditions after the crime, etc., all of the circumstances indicated in the arguments and records of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual behavior, conditions after the crime, etc., are all taken into account.

In accordance with Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes concerning the Duty to Submit Personal Information, Disclosure, and Notice Order, the Constitutional Court’s decision that “any person who is finally convicted of committing a crime under Article 13 of the Act shall be a person subject to registration of personal information” is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Decision 2015HunMa688, Mar. 31, 2016), and thus retroactively loses the validity of the above part, the Defendant is not obliged to submit personal information, and is premised thereon.