The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which exempted the defendant from the order of disclosure and notification of personal information, despite the risk of recommitting a sexual crime, in light of the course, content, means, and method of the crime of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (2 million won in penalty, 40 hours in order to complete the course) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not have a previous record of sexual assault, and the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, and is highly likely to prevent sexual assault against many and unspecified persons in the future.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, in light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the age, nationality, occupation, and social relationship of the Defendant, etc., the punishment imposed by this court and orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs can be sufficiently expected to improve the character and conduct of the Defendant and to prevent recidivism.

In full view of other circumstances, such as the social benefits expected by the disclosure order or notification order, the prevention effect of sexual crimes, the disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the defendant, there are special circumstances in which the disclosure of personal information of the defendant may not be disclosed.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that exempted the defendant from the disclosure and notification order of personal information against the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s wrongful determination of sentencing is an indecent act against women’s sexual intercourse at a singing practice place, and the nature of the offense is not weak in light of the content and circumstances of the offense.

(b).