The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not contain any indecent act against the victim, nor does he/she interfere with the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding a guilty of all the charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio determination of ex officio the part of the judgment below ordering disclosure and notification of personal information to the defendant.

The Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provide that the personal information of all sex offenders shall, in principle, be disclosed and notified to defend our society from sexual crimes, be exempted only in cases where there are no exceptional circumstances to avoid such disclosure and notification.

Here, whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that there are special circumstances to prohibit disclosure of personal information” as a ground for exception to disclosure order and notification order should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of an offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness, etc. of the crime, characteristics of the crime, such as the crime, such as the type, consequence, and seriousness of the crime, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entry due to disclosure order or notification order, prevention of sexual crimes subject to registration, effects of protection

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16863 Decided February 23, 2012). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court did not have any history of sexual crime against the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant did not appear to have a risk of re-offending in light of the background of the instant indecent act and the degree of indecent act, and in this case, the Defendant’s re-offending is limited to the registration of personal information and the course of