The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the disclosure notification for a period of three years, even though there are special circumstances that may not disclose the personal information of the criminal defendant involved in the disclosure notification order.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of disclosure disclosure order, there are special circumstances that may not disclose personal information, as stipulated in the proviso of Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, on the grounds of the exception to disclosure order and notification order.

In determining whether a case constitutes “a crime” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012, etc.) such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of repeating a crime, characteristics of the crime, such as the type, motive, process of the crime, seriousness of the crime, etc., the degree of disadvantage and expected side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to the disclosure and notification order, the prevention effect of the sex offense against the juveniles, and the effect of protecting the juveniles from the sex offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012). In other words, the instant crime committed by the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victims on two occasions and by force on two occasions at their domicile, and the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year and one year and one year and two years and one year and one year and seven years and seven years and one of the Defendant’s residence.