The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and four years of suspended execution for two years and six years of imprisonment, completion of sexual assault treatment programs 80 hours, and 4 years of a disclosure notification order) by the court below is too unreasonable, and there are special circumstances under which the defendant may be exempted from the disclosure and notification order of personal information.

2. Determination as to the unjust argument regarding the disclosure and notification order

A. Whether a case constitutes “any special circumstance to not disclose or notify personal information” provided for in Articles 47(1) and 49(1) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the proviso to Article 50(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, characteristics of the offender, such as the risk of recidivism, such as the type, motive, process, result, seriousness of the crime, etc., characteristics of the crime, such as disclosure or notification order, degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects that the Defendant suffers from the disclosure or notification order, effects on the prevention of sexual crimes subject to registration, and effects on the protection of victims from sexual crimes subject to registration, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do14676 Decided January 27, 2012). B.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, namely, ① the Defendant had no record of sexual crime up to the day before the instant crime was committed, ② the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, it seems that the Defendant appears that the risk of preventing sexual assault against many and unspecified persons was not high, ③ the Defendant is in depth, and in particular, the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim. ④ At present, the Defendant did not want the Defendant.