The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

information about the defendant for five years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, ten years of disclosure of personal information, and twenty years of attachment order to an electronic device) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 38(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that the period for disclosure of registered information under Article 38(1) of the Act shall not exceed the period under Article 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, Etc. (hereinafter “the Act”), and Article 7(1) of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. provides that “when the period of punishment expires from the date on which the execution of punishment is completed or exempted without suspension of qualification or heavier punishment, the punishment shall be invalidated upon the expiration of the period classified as follows,” and Article 7(1) of the Act provides that “any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than three years shall be sentenced to imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than five years (subparagraph 1), five years for a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than three years, and any fine for not more than two years (subparagraph 2) shall be subject to invalidation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17564 Decided March 10, 201). The lower court ordered the Defendant to disclose information for ten years, even though the disclosure period of the registered information pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Act is not more than five years, since the Defendant and the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter “the Defendant” and “the Defendant”) subject to aggravated punishment as to the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device and the person subject to an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter “the Defendant”), and imposed a punishment for three years after discretionary mitigation, the lower court ordered the Defendant to disclose information. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the period of disclosure order

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts, facts constituting the attachment order.