The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The lower court violated the Japanese rule of indictment by stating the previous convictions of the case for which a decision to start a new trial became final and conclusive.

2) Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act was violated as the facts charged, such as the time and place of the crime, were unspecified.

B. On December 2015, the Defendant fulfilled his duty to report the change of personal information and received treatment at the hospital in Seoul as a result of an accident, and there was no removal from the existing place of residence, and on June 17, 2016, the Defendant submitted new pictures with personal information changed to the building station in the jurisdiction of the existing place of residence and fulfilled his duty to report normally to the relevant police station, etc.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. If a person subject to registration of personal information submitted is changed as a person subject to registration of personal information under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the defendant is obligated to submit the reason and details of the change to the police station having jurisdiction over his/her domicile within 20 days from the date

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant, in the resident registration registered with personal information and his/her domicile, moved out from C dormitories B, which is located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, which is the Defendant’s children’s residence, to December 2015, the Defendant violated his/her duty by failing to submit the changed personal information to the police agency having jurisdiction over the domicile within 20 days, even though he/she changed his/her actual domicile from around that time.

B. 1) Determination 1) Prior to the judgment and argument on the grounds for the judgment dismissing the prosecution, the indictment of this case does not contain any indication on the Defendant’s previous conviction, and thus, the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles pertaining to the violation of Japaneseism in indictment is without merit.

Next, the bill of indictment in this case specifies both the previous place of residence and the new place of residence as the place of crime.