The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, and forty hours of lectures for sexual assault treatment) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to have exempted the Defendant from disclosure and notification of personal information.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Inasmuch as the statutory penalty for the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Sex Offenses of Child and Juveniles is a fine of “a person who has been punished by imprisonment for a limited term of at least two years” or “a person who has been punished by a limited term of at least 10,000 won but not exceeding 30,000 won”, the lower limit of the applicable sentence is “two years of imprisonment.”

The judgment of the court below was unlawful since the defendant was sentenced to the punishment of "one year of imprisonment" which is lower than the applicable sentence without legal mitigation or reduction of amount of imprisonment after choosing imprisonment for a limited term.

B. As to the wrongful assertion that exemption from disclosure disclosure disclosure order is unfair, there are special circumstances that need not disclose or notify personal information, as stipulated in the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles’ Sex Offenses.

In determining whether a case constitutes “a case” 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 or notification order, the preventive effects of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims from the sexual crime subject to registration (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012). The Defendant did not have any past record of punishment for sexual crimes of this case, including the motive and background of the crime of this case, the effect expected by the disclosure or notification order, and the disadvantages resulting therefrom.