Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unfair that the sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime and three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second crime in its holding, etc.) against the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Prosecutor 1) Since the exemption from disclosure and notification orders is likely to pose a high risk of repeating a crime by an illegal defendant, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose and notify his/her personal registration information. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3 The court below's improper issuance of an attachment order for a period of 10 years, even though the defendant should be sentenced to an attachment order for an electronic tracking device for the period of 20 years.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification, whether it constitutes “any special circumstance that shall not disclose or notify personal information” as an exception to disclosure and notification orders 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, etc., characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc., characteristics of the crime, such as disclosure or notification orders, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s injury due to such disclosure or notification orders, preventive effects of sexual crimes subject to registration, and effects of protecting victims from sexual crimes subject to registration.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012). In light of such legal doctrine, the lower court, in the special circumstances where: (a) each of the instant crimes was committed under the following circumstances, namely, in the relationship with the victim, who was living in the same household as the Defendant; (b) the said crime was committed within the family.