Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the disclosure and notification of personal information of the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the Defendant”).

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device, although the Defendant did not pose a risk of recommitting a sexual crime.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime constitutes a sexual crime subject to the disclosure order and notification order. The Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that a person who committed a sexual crime shall disclose and notify the personal information of the person who committed the sexual crime in principle, and that such exemption shall be granted only in cases where there are special circumstances that may not be an exception to the disclosure order.

Considering the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime of this case as indicated in the record, the degree and expected side effects of the disadvantage of the defendant's admission due to the disclosure or notification order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes that can be achieved therefrom, and the protection effect of the victim, etc., it is difficult to view that there are special circumstances that the disclosure or notification of personal information of the defendant is prohibited. Thus, the order of the court below ordering the disclosure or notification of personal information to the defendant is justifiable measures. Furthermore, considering the above circumstances indicated in the record, considering the period of disclosure or notification of personal information for five years ordered by the court below, the disclosure or notification period of personal information for five years

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court determined as to the wrongful assertion regarding an attachment order: (i) the Defendant lent and accessed the phone call from May 20, 201 to the first female (the age of 24).

When the victim refuses to reject, the victim is the victim.