The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The court below's scope of trial in this case dismissed the prosecution against assault among the facts charged in this case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal part of the prosecution. Thus, the dismissal part of the judgment below's dismissal became final and conclusive separately.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

In light of the misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal and the misunderstanding of the legal principles (unfair exemption from disclosure disclosure order) and the criminal nature and methods of the defendant, it is unreasonable that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that the court exempted the defendant from disclosure and notification order of personal information, although there are no special circumstances that may not disclose

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (2 million won in penalty, 24 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

As to the unfair argument that exemption from disclosure disclosure order is unfair, there are special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the personal information, as provided for in the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

The issue of whether a case constitutes “a case to be determined” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc. of the crime, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to an disclosure order or notification order, the preventive effects and effects of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effects of the protection of the victims from the sexual crime subject to registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, health class, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant, and there is no history of punishment for a sexual crime.