The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and a fine of 1,00,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal (a prison term of six months and a fine of one million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor by larceny, etc. at the Ulsan District Court on February 19, 2016 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 27, 2016. The above larceny, etc., for which judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of this case in relation to a group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, shall be determined after examining whether punishment is mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and cases where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In addition, among the judgment below, the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victims F, 2015 high group 1355, constitutes a sex offense subject to registration under Article 42(1) of the same Act, and thus, is subject to an order to disclose and notify personal information under Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the same Act and Articles 49 and 50 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. The court below erred by omitting judgment on the order to disclose and notify personal information, even if it is found guilty.

In addition, Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that “When a court declares a guilty verdict on a person who has committed a sexual crime, it shall concurrently issue an order to attend a lecture or to complete a sexual assault treatment program necessary for the prevention of re-offending within 500 hours, and shall not apply in exceptional circumstances where an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a program may not be imposed.” However, the court below erred by omitting the determination as to whether an order to complete a program was not imposed and any special circumstance where an order to complete a program may not be imposed exists,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.