All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. In view of the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case, his depth is divided, and his mother makes efforts to agree with the victims, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable (three years and six months of imprisonment, etc.).

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes against the victims, who are the victims at the same place, a prosecutor 1) was exempted from disclosure and notification order, and thus, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification order despite being given an order to disclose and notify the Defendant’s personal registration information. 2) In view of the fact that the nature of each of the instant crimes is grave, and the suffering suffered by the victims is considerable and the damage has not been recovered, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of exemption from disclosure or notification order, whether the case constitutes “any special circumstance that may not disclose or notify personal information” as an exception to disclosure or notification order under the proviso to Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the crime, type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc., characteristics of the crime such as disclosure or notification order, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to disclosure or notification order, preventive effects and effects of the sexual crime subject to registration, and effects of protecting victims from the sexual crime subject to registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676 Decided January 27, 2012). In light of such legal doctrine, the instant case is recognized by the Health Team and the record, namely, the following circumstances.