The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of order to attend a course) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Although there are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as that the Defendant denied the instant crime until the Defendant was in the trial room, and that the instant crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s delivery of text messages that cause a sense of sexual humiliation to his father and wife, and that the Defendant’s criminal liability is not mitigated, in light of the motive and background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfeasible to the Defendant.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the person for whom the judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive as a crime under Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 1156, Dec. 18, 2012) is subject to registration of personal information in the case of Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is clear that he/she has held office once and six times in the instant case.

Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure provides that “The part is against the Constitution,” and Article 25 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media) is not a person subject to registration of personal information even if the defendant is finally determined by the above Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional decision and thus, the defendant is not a person subject to registration of personal information.