The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

In addition, a person who requests an attachment order shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. In light of the gravity of the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendants”) (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

Considering the defendant's criminal nature, criminal records, risk of recidivism, etc., the court below's failure to issue a personal information disclosure and notification order and employment restriction order to the defendant is unfair.

2. Determination

A. A. A prosecutor made a request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device against the Defendant at the trial of the ex officio judgment, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the case of the Defendant and the case of applying for an attachment order. Since the case of applying for an attachment order is to be tried together with the Defendant’s case and to be sentenced simultaneously with the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's improper assertion about the prosecutor's exemption from the disclosure notification order and employment restriction order is still subject to the court's decision, and the following is examined.

B. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment regarding the exemption from disclosure and notification of personal information and the unfair assertion of exemption from employment restriction orders, and that the instant crime alone poses a risk of recommitting a sex offense against an unspecified victim.

This is expected to be effective in preventing recidivism to a certain extent only with the registration of personal information, probation, and taking lectures in sexual assault treatment, and considering various circumstances such as the defendant's age, family environment, benefits expected by the defendant's order of disclosure or notification or employment restriction order, the effects of preventing sex crimes, disadvantages and anticipated side effects, there is a special circumstance that the defendant's personal information should not be disclosed and notified or his employment should not be restricted.

Therefore, the court below held.