The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is necessary to restrain unfair recidivism of exemption from disclosure notification order, the lower court’s exemption from disclosure notification order of registered information is unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case of unfair sentencing is not good, that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspension period of execution on the grounds of the same crime, that the photograph taken by the defendant was up to the white paper, and that the victims other than E, except for E, want the punishment of the defendant, the court below’s sentence that sentenced the order to complete the sexual assault treatment program of 6 months and 40 hours is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in principle, the disclosure and notification of personal information of a person who has committed a sexual crime to the public, and where it is deemed that there are special circumstances that may not be an exception, such exemption shall be exempted.

Whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that there is a special reason not to disclose personal information” shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of an offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the offense, etc. of the offense, characteristics of the offense, such as disclosure order or notification order, degree and anticipated side effects of the disadvantage the Defendant suffers, preventive effects of sexual crimes subject to registration to be achieved, and effects of the protection of victims from sexual crimes subject to registration, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and his family members are leading the Defendant. In this case, the effect of preventing the recidivism of the Defendant is to prevent the registration of personal information alone.