The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment imposing the duty to register personal information is too unreasonable in light of the sentencing reasons of the Defendant’s improper duty to register personal information.

B. The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 3 million, KRW 400,000,000, and KRW 40,000,000) against an unjust defendant for sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 42(1), Article 43(1), and Article 45(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Punishment Act”) provides that “Any person who is finally convicted of a sex offense subject to registration shall be subject to registration of personal information and shall submit personal information to the head of the competent police office within 30 days from the date on which the conviction becomes final and conclusive, and the Minister of Justice shall preserve and manage the registered information of a person subject to registration for a period of 20 years from the date of the initial registration.”

The defendant's crime is an offense falling under Article 14 (1) and Article 12 of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act, and constitutes a sex offense subject to registration. The judgment of conviction on the above crime becomes final and conclusive, which is a person subject to registration of personal information in accordance with Article 42 (1) of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act, is a duty that is naturally generated in accordance with the above provisions of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing each of the crimes of this case as well as against its own attitude to reflect on the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, such as: (a) the primary offender who has no particular criminal record; and (b) the dissemination of the photographed video.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon a public place for sexual purpose, and photographing images that may cause a sense of sexual shame against the victim’s will, and the nature of the crime is not good. The lower court considered the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.