The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unfair for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders of personal information disclosure to the contrary.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that exemption from disclosure or notification order is unfair, the determination should 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 of the relevant crime, consequence, seriousness of the relevant crime, etc., degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to disclosure or notification order, prevention effect of sex offenses against children and juveniles, protection effect of children and juveniles from sex offenses, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012). Examining the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment to the same effect is justifiable, on that it is reasonable to have determined that there was a special reason that the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed or notified.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

(1) In full view of the facts that the Defendant was the first offender without any previous conviction, and that the Defendant exchanged telephone numbers with the victim immediately before the instant crime, the instant crime appears to have been committed contingent, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had a habit of sexual assault.

The punishment imposed on the defendant, the registration of personal information, the order to attend sexual assault treatment lectures, etc.