The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

information about the defendant for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too minor.

B. It is unreasonable to exempt the Defendant and the person whose attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) from the disclosure and notification order of personal information.

C. Dismissal of a request for an attachment order is unfair.

2. According to Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provides that the disclosure and notification of personal information of persons who committed sexual crimes, in principle, shall be given to the persons who have committed sexual crimes, and the exemption shall be granted under exceptional circumstances.

Whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that there is a special reason not to disclose personal information” shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of an offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the offense, etc. of the offense, characteristics of the offense, such as disclosure order or notification order, degree and anticipated side effects of the disadvantage the Defendant suffers, preventive effects of sexual crimes subject to registration to be achieved, and effects of the protection of victims from sexual crimes subject to registration, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). According to the records in this case, the results of the assessment conducted by the risk assessment degree of sexual offenders (KSORAS) and the screening method of the mentally ill persons (PC-R), each of the total points 10 points, and 14 points each, comprehensive risk of recidivism falls under the intermediate level.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case, namely, ① the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment for three and a half years for committing the crime of quasi-rape, etc. on or around 2014, which was prior to the commission of the instant indecent act by compulsion, as well as the Defendant committed the crime of quasi-rape, etc. on or around 2014; ② the Defendant committed the instant crime again only one year after release, and ③ the Defendant committed the instant crime.