Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case against Defendant 1 of this case that Defendant 1 did not repeat the same sexual crime because he did not commit the same sexual crime as Defendant 1's initial crime

In light of the circumstances, such as the disclosure and notification of personal information of the accused, the lower court’s judgment that allowed disclosure and notification of such information for a period of five years, even though there are special circumstances that may not be disclosed or notified.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a 12-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below that ordered an applicant for an attachment order to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years in the absence of the risk of recidivism of sexual crime and recidivism in the part of the request for the attachment order is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the unlawful assertion of disclosure or notification order, Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 49(1) and Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, there is a special circumstance that the personal information of a sex offender should, in principle, be disclosed and notified to the public, not be allowed to be exceptionally.

only if it is determined, it shall be exempted.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, family environment, social relationship, the risk of repeating a crime and the degree of the Defendant’s distorted perception of the risk of committing a crime, motive, background and subject matter of the crime, means and method of the crime and the result thereof, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entry due to the disclosure and notification order, the prevention of sexual crimes that may be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do163, Feb. 23, 2012) based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, there is a special circumstance that the Defendant’s personal information shall not be disclosed or notified solely on the basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant

shall not be deemed to exist.

In the same purport, the defendant-appellant.