The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose the registered information without specific and clear grounds, in light of the crime committed by the Defendant who was unreasonably exempted from an order to notify disclosure.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case’s unfair sentencing was committed by the Defendant by force by force on the part of female employees who are mixed at the convenience store, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the victim seems to have caused considerable fear and sexual humiliation, etc., the sentence of the lower court which sentenced the Defendant to complete the program of sexual assault treatment for a fine of one million won and 40 hours is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, in principle, the disclosure and notification of personal information of a person who has committed a sexual crime to the public, and where it is deemed that there are special circumstances that may not be an exception, such exemption shall be exempted.

Whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that there is a special reason not to disclose personal information” shall 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 of the offense, etc. of the offense, characteristics of the offense, such as disclosure order or notification order, degree and anticipated side effects of the disadvantage the Defendant suffers, preventive effects of sexual crimes subject to registration to be achieved, and effects of the protection of victims from sexual crimes subject to registration, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant reflects the mistake, and there is no record of criminal punishment for the same crime, and the instant case.