All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that exempted the Defendant from the order to disclose or notify the personal information of the Defendant (public prosecutor) by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is improper. 2) The sentencing of the court below (the Defendant, the public prosecutor) (the sentencing of the Defendant, nine years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order) is too heavy or unreasonable.

B. The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of an electronic tracking device in light of the motive, background, method, period, frequency, etc. of the instant crime, and thus, dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of an electronic tracking device. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recidivism of sexual crimes and the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the case against Defendant 1 of this case’s exemption from a disclosure and notification order of personal information (the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle)

rule that exemption shall be granted if it is determined.

There is a special reason not to disclose or notify personal information.

In determining whether a case constitutes “a case” ought to be determined 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., characteristics of the crime, such as disclosure order or notification order, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance, the preventive effect and effect of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims from the sexual crime subject to registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do163, Feb. 23, 2012). The lower court has the same record on the Defendant.