The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the content and form of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”), the purport thereof, and the legal nature of the judgment of suspended sentence, etc., if a judgment of conviction is finalized due to a sex crime subject to registration, not by a court separately imposing personal information on a person subject to registration pursuant to Article 43 of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, the judgment of suspended sentence is naturally generated pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act

Therefore, even in cases where a judgment of suspended sentence is rendered on a sex offense subject to registration, the judgment of suspended sentence becomes final and conclusive, and is immediately liable to submit personal information as a person subject to registration. However, if a judgment of suspended sentence is deemed acquitted after two years have elapsed since the judgment of suspended sentence became final and conclusive, the person subject to

In addition, since a court does not separately impose the duty to submit personal information of a person subject to registration, it is meaningful that a court that pronounced a conviction under Article 42(2) of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act should inform the person subject to registration that he/she should submit personal information.

Therefore, even if the court erred in the scope or content of the duty to submit personal information that was omitted or notified while rendering a judgment of conviction, the court may revise the legitimate contents and notify the duty to submit personal information again, and the higher court may correct errors by newly notifying the duty to submit personal information of legitimate contents without any need to reverse the judgment. Thus, even if the court of first instance or the lower court erred in relation to the notification of the duty to submit personal information of the first instance or the lower court, such error does not affect the judgment.

Supreme Court on November 13, 2014