The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor;

A. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose the registered information without any special circumstances despite the need to disclose the Defendant’s registered information in light of the content of the crime of this case, which was improper to exempt the Defendant from disclosure disclosure order.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case committed the crime of this case was committed by the victim who is waiting for bus at the roadside with his own hands, thereby committing an indecent act by force, and the risk of recidivism is high, it is unreasonable for the court below to impose the order of suspension of execution 2 years, 120 hours, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment for the period of 8 months of imprisonment, and the order of suspension of execution 2 years, 120 hours, and 40 hours of imprisonment.

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, disclosure of personal information of a sex offender should be given to the public, and there are special circumstances that need not be given exceptional cases.

If it is judged, it shall be removed.

There is a special reason not to disclose personal information.

Determination of whether a case constitutes “a case to be determined” ought to 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, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc. of the crime, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to an disclosure order or notification order, the preventive effects and effects of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims of sexual assault (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do163, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant has no history of criminal punishment for sexual assault crimes, and the case in this case.