The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

In addition, it is improper that the court below imposes an order to disclose and notify personal information and an employment restriction order on the defendant.

2. Determination

A. It does not seem that there are new circumstances or special changes in circumstances that can be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

Furthermore, even if comprehensively considering the sentencing factors as indicated in the reasoning of sentencing in the lower judgment and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, as well as various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument and record, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy beyond the scope of

B. The Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall allow disclosure and notification of personal information of all persons who have committed sexual crimes in principle in order to defend our society from sexual crimes, and it shall be exempted only where there are special circumstances that would not be an exception to such disclosure and notification.

Here, whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that there are special circumstances to prohibit disclosure of personal information” as a ground for exception to disclosure order and notification order 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 characteristics of the crime, such as the type, process, consequence, and seriousness of the crime, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entry due to the disclosure order or notification order, prevention of sexual

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court is recognized.