The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the defendant's case) At the time of the crime of this case, the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter "defendant")

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) was too unreasonable, under the influence of alcohol, so far as the lower court lacks the ability to distinguish things or make decisions.

3 The lower court ordering the disclosure and notification of personal information to the illegal accused for five years.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for five years.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the details of the instant crime and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, which can be found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, as to the claim of mental disability, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but thereby, does not seem to have been in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is unacceptable. As to the allegation that the disclosure and notification order is unreasonable, the instant crime constitutes a sexual crime subject to registration under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the relevant provisions of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse apply to disclosure and notification order. Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provide that the disclosure and notification of personal information of a person who committed a sexual crime should, in principle, be exempted only where it is deemed that there exists “special circumstances” that would not be an exception.

However, the defendant's age, occupation, and occupation can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.