The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of prosecutor's appeal grounds;

A. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose the registered information without any specific reasons, in light of the content of the crime of this case, which was improper to exempt the disclosure disclosure order, and the possibility of recidivism.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case committed the crime of this case was committed with the victim who was at the front of the road at a fast speed, and as the victim's right macks, it is not good that the crime of this case was committed by force once more, and that the victim wants to punish the defendant, it is unreasonable for the court below to impose the order to attend the lecture for treatment of sexual assault for 2 years and 40 hours of imprisonment for six months of suspension of execution.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in principle, disclosure of personal information of a sex offender should be given to the public, and there are special circumstances that need not be given exceptional cases.

If it is judged, it shall be removed.

There is a special reason not to disclose personal information.

Determination of whether a case constitutes “a case to be determined” ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc. of the crime, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to the disclosure order or notification order, the preventive effects and effects of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effects of the protection of the victims from the sexual crime subject to registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do163, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant.