2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

3.Provided, That this judgment shall not apply.

A. Part 1 of the case by Defendant 1) The sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant and the claimant for the observation order of the protective custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2) There are special circumstances in which disclosure or notification of personal information may not be made to the Defendant in light of the criminal history of the Defendant’s improper exemption from disclosure or notification order and the need to prevent recidivism.

Although the court below could not be seen, it is unreasonable to exempt the defendant from the disclosure order and notification order of information.

B. It is unreasonable that the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the observation order of the instant protection on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, as long as it is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor on the part of the case against the defendant.

Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which stipulates that Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which stipulates the employment restrictions on children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a ten-year period, shall be amended by Act No. 15352 on January 16, 2018, and Article 56 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that the court shall determine the employment restrictions period for each defendant in a different period within the scope of ten years in consideration of the severity of each offense, the risk of recidivism, etc. while sentencing a punishment for an individual sex offense case, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that Article 56 of the same Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the court below in this regard no longer be maintained.

(b) protective observation of specific criminal offenders and attach electronic devices in the part of the request for protective observation orders.