The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The court below exempted the disclosure and notification of personal information on the ground that the defendant is a juvenile even though the defendant is not a juvenile at the time of rendering the judgment of the court below, and it is improper to exempt the defendant from disclosure and notification of personal information.

(2) Although HDD hard disks is not subject to confiscation, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles or facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unfased and unreasonable.

(c) Dismissal of a request for probation order is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. In light of the nature and nature of the disclosure order and the nature of the disclosure order and the content and purport of the relevant law, etc., whether the above "a defendant is a child or juvenile" as an exception to the disclosure order should be determined based on the time the fact-finding judgment is rendered.

(2) The lower court’s determination as to whether the disclosure of personal information constitutes “any other special circumstance that is prohibited from disclosing personal information” under Articles 49(1) and 50(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse should be made by comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc., the degree and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the disclosure and notification order, the preventive effect of the sex offense against children and juveniles, the protection effect of children and juveniles from the sex offense, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012). According to the records, the Defendant is K students.