The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

In addition, a person who requests an attachment order shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years and six months.

Defendant

(b).

1. The sentencing of the court below is too uncomfortable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor filed a claim against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), against the location tracking device attachment order requester, and the court decided to consolidate the case with the Defendant and the case where the attachment order is requested. As the case where the attachment order is requested with the Defendant, the judgment of the court below should no longer be maintained in that respect, since the Defendant’s case where the attachment order is requested should be examined together with the Defendant and the judgment

B. Also, we examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the disclosure and notification order.

1) The lower court held that the Defendant’s prevention of recidivism can be achieved only with the fact that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment for sexual assault crimes, the registration of personal information on the Defendant, and the completion of sexual assault treatment programs.

In full view of other circumstances, such as the profits expected by the disclosure or notification order, the effect of crime prevention, disadvantages resulting therefrom, and anticipated side effects, there are special circumstances in which the personal information of the defendant may not be disclosed or notified.

The decision was determined.

2) There are special circumstances in which the disclosure of personal information is prohibited as one of the grounds for exception to the disclosure order and notification order under Articles 49(1) and 50(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

In determining whether a case constitutes “a crime” shall 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 of the relevant crime, seriousness of the relevant crime, characteristics of the crime, such as disclosure and notification order, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to disclosure and notification order, preventive effects of the sex offense against the juveniles, and effects of the protection of the juveniles from the sex offense (Supreme Court Decision 201Do124, Jan. 27, 2012).