All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant (unfairness) is against the mistake of the Defendant, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by contingency under the influence of alcohol, the lower court’s sentence, which sentenced the Defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program program for six months and forty hours, is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the prosecutor (1) from the disclosure notification order despite the need to restrain unfair recidivism.

(2) In light of the fact that the crime of this case of unfair sentencing is not good, the risk of recidivism is high, and the compensation for damage is not made, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in principle, the disclosure and notification of personal information of a person who has committed a sexual crime to the public, and where it is deemed that there are special circumstances that may not be an exception, such exemption shall be exempted.

Whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that there is a special reason not to disclose personal information” shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of an offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the offense, etc. of the offense, characteristics of the offense, such as disclosure order or notification order, degree and anticipated side effects of the disadvantage the Defendant suffers, preventive effects of sexual crimes subject to registration to be achieved, and effects of the protection of victims from sexual crimes subject to registration, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and in this case, the registration of personal information alone prevents the Defendant from repeating the offense.