The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

One seized wall, three thousand won right, three thousand won right.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Each of the instant crimes was committed in a state of mental disorder caused by drinking alcohol. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by both ex officio determination on the grounds of appeal, as to a person who commits a sexual crime subject to registration under Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the crime is committed prior to the enforcement of Articles 37 and 41 of the Addenda of the same Act pursuant to Article 2(2) of the same Act, and the prosecution against such person is instituted, insofar as an order for disclosure or notification is not issued at the time of enforcement of Articles 37 and 41 of the same Act, the order for disclosure or notification under Articles 37 and 41 of the same Act shall be subject to an order for disclosure or notification (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9253, Sep. 29, 201) (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9253, Sept. 29, 201). Criminal facts committed by the Defendant constitute sexual crimes subject to an order for disclosure and notification under Articles 32(1) of the Addenda of the same Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant's crime No. 8 of the above crime is not subject to an order to disclose and notify personal information. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application under Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the above case, which affected

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety because it erred by omitting the disclosure order and notification order, which are incidental disposition.

Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The records of this case as to the defendant's claim of mental disability.