The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The determination on whether a case constitutes “where it is deemed that any special circumstance exists that may not disclose personal information” as one of the grounds for exception to an order to disclose or notify information, which is applied pursuant to Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, such as the offender’s characteristic, such as the type and motive of the offense, the process of the offense, the result, characteristics of the offense, such as the seriousness of the offense, etc., the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the disclosure or notification order, preventive effects of the sexual crime subject to registration, and effects on the protection of the victim from the sexual crime subject to registration, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16863, Feb. 23, 2012). The lower court determined that there were no special circumstances to prevent the Defendant from disclosing and notifying personal information, and maintained the first instance judgment that ordered the Defendant to disclose and notify personal information for two years.

Considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, criminal record, type of crime, motive, criminal process, result, etc., the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable even in light of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.