The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the lower court’s judgment omitted the sentence of forfeiture of the seized article, even though the son’s 6th (No. 1) seized by the Defendant constituted an object of forfeiture as an instrument used for committing the crime.

(2) In light of the high possibility of recidivism, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose personal information.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case committed an unfair sentencing constitutes a sexual crime, and the attitude of the crime is extremely poor, the victim was a serious mental impulse and the punishment of the defendant was imposed, etc., the punishment of the court below (five million won of the punishment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misunderstanding (1) Whether the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, which was omitted from the pronouncement of confiscation, would be voluntary and thus be subject to the court’s discretion.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below did not sentence the confiscation of the seized article which is the object of voluntary confiscation. Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court that exempted the disclosure notification order of personal information, namely, that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is in profoundly against the Defendant; that there is no criminal history; that the Defendant’s family relationship with the Defendant, including the Defendant’s wife; and that the Defendant’s completion of the registration of personal information and the sexual violence treatment program could have considerable effect on preventing recidivism.

In full view of the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., there are more disadvantages and side effects that the above defendant will suffer rather than the benefits and preventive effects expected by the disclosure order or notification order.

I seem to appear.

Therefore, it is true.