The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There are no special circumstances to exempt the criminal defendant from disclosure and notification orders.

B. It is unreasonable that the court below did not confiscate Samsung Tallon No. 2 (No. 1) confiscated by the court below.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that exemption from disclosure and notification order is unfair, the lower court determined that there were special circumstances in which personal information should not be disclosed or notified pursuant to the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, content and motive of the crime, method and seriousness of the crime, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s suffering due to the disclosure or notification order, the preventive effect and effect of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, the effect of the protection of the victim, etc., in full view of the following: (a) Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; (b) Articles 49(1) proviso and 50(1) proviso

Examining the lower court’s judgment by closely comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of confiscation, Samsung Tal jute 2 (No. 1) confiscated by the defendant is recognized as belonging to the defendant and is an object provided for the crime of this case. Thus, it constitutes subject to confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

Furthermore, the above seized articles are articles directly provided for the commission of the instant crime, and the video files recorded by the Defendant during the instant crime were stored in the above seized articles, and are likely to be restored even if they were deleted, and are leaked to the outside.