The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Information and Communications Network.

1. The punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the first instance court as to the accused case of the gist of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable;

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 37(2) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 11162, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that the period of disclosure of registered information under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall not exceed the period under Article 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. (hereinafter “Punishment”), and Article 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “the period of disclosure of information on a case involving a prosecuted case shall not exceed the period under Article 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. of Criminal Crimes.” Article 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “When a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than three years has completed or exempted from the execution of a sentence without prison labor or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years (Article 10(1)); five years (Article 2); and two years (Article 3) shall be the period during

Therefore, when a court declares a person subject to disclosure of information on sexual crimes pursuant to Article 37(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes to imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years, it shall not be deemed that such person may not be ordered

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant and the person subject to an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) should disclose information about the instant criminal facts for ten years, while the first instance court sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment, on June 28, 2012, and ordered the disclosure of information on the Defendant and the person subject to an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the period of the disclosure order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the disclosure order cannot be reversed, and the disclosure order is sentenced by the court simultaneously with the judgment of the sexual crime case.