beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s improper exemption from disclosure order did not issue an order to disclose personal information without specific and clear grounds, which violates the purport of requiring, in principle, the order to disclose personal information in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes to be declared simultaneously with the judgment.
B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the female passenger in a village bus, which is a public-populated place, for about three minutes, in the crime of unfair sentencing, the crime of this case was committed, and the nature of the crime is not good, the lower court’s suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million is too uneasible and unfair.
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’s mistake reflects his/her own fault, and there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the instant case is involved.