The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s improper exemption from disclosure order and notification order is unlawful for the Defendant and the requester for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to exempt the Defendant from disclosure order and notification order of personal information.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

(c)

Although the Defendant’s request for attachment order was likely to repeat a sex crime, the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment order is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. As to exemption from disclosure order and notification order, the main text of Article 49(1) and the main text of Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse requires disclosure and notification of personal information of all persons who have committed sexual assault crimes against children and juveniles, and is exempt from disclosure order only in extenuating circumstances.

Whether there are special circumstances in which personal information should not be disclosed shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the defendant's age, occupation, risk of recidivism, etc. nature of the offender, such as the type, motive, process, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc. of the crime, characteristics of the crime such as disclosure order or notification order, the degree and anticipated side effects of the disadvantage the defendant was put in, and the effect of preventing sexual crimes that may be achieved by the disclosure order or notification order (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14676, Jan. 27, 2012).

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship, profits expected by an order to disclose, and effects of the prevention of sexual crimes, and the disadvantage and side effects of the defendant.