The judgment below

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

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

. against the Defendant.

1. Considering the gist of the grounds for appeal in light of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is deemed too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 37(2) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Article 41(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11162, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), the disclosure period of registered information does not exceed the period stipulated under Article 7 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Lapse, etc. of Criminal Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter

Meanwhile, Article 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the punishment shall be invalidated when the period specified in any of the following subparagraphs elapses from the date on which the execution of the punishment is completed or exempted without being sentenced to suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment," and Article 7(1) of the same Act provides that "the punishment shall be invalidated when the period specified in any of the following subparagraphs elapses," respectively, for more than three years, for imprisonment with or without prison labor, for not more than three years (No. 1), five years (No. 2), and for a fine, for the period during which

Therefore, when a person subject to disclosure and notification order is sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years, it is not possible to order the disclosure of registered information for more than five years or to order the notification.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the period of the disclosure order and the notification order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the period of the disclosure order and the notification order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, among the defendant's case of the judgment below, the part of the disclosure order and notification order cannot be reversed, and the disclosure order and disclosure order.