The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The determination on whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that any special circumstance exists that may not disclose personal information” as one of the grounds for exception to an order to disclose or notify information, which is applied under Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, etc., characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc., characteristics of the crime, such as disclosure or notification order, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the disclosure or notification order, preventive effects against sexual crimes subject to registration, effects on the prevention of sexual crimes subject to registration, and effects on the protection of victims from sexual crimes subject to registration, etc.

(2) In light of the substance and purport of the aforementioned provision, the disclosure order and the grounds for exception to the disclosure order should not be separately determined, respectively, and the same should be determined in cases where the grounds for exception to the disclosure order and the notification order are common with the grounds for exception.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that there is no special reason to prevent the Defendant from disclosing or notifying personal information, and sentenced the Defendant to an order to disclose or notify personal information for two years.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, criminal record and the type, motive, criminal process, result, etc., the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the order to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided by all participating Justices.