The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years of disclosure of personal information, 3 years of restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

(2) Although there are special circumstances under which disclosure or notification of personal information should not be disclosed to the accused, it is improper for the court below to order the accused to disclose personal information.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Electronic information related to the instant crime under subparagraph 2 (electronic information stored in a cellphone) of the seized evidence shall be discarded in accordance with Article 48(3) of the Criminal Act.

2. Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provide that a person who has committed a sexual crime shall disclose and notify the personal information of all persons who have committed a sexual crime in principle, and shall be exempted only if it is determined that there is a “special circumstance” which shall not be exceptionally prohibited from disclosing personal information, and whether the case constitutes a case where there is “special circumstance” which shall not disclose personal information, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, etc., characteristics of the crime, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness, etc. of the crime, characteristics of the disclosure and notification order, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s injury caused by the disclosure and notification order, preventive effects on the registration of a sexual crime, effects on the protection of victims

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). In addition to the instant case, the Defendant took pictures of the body of women located in a place over approximately ten times a year and ten months, and many and unspecified persons.