The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor;

A. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose the registered information without any special circumstances despite the need to disclose the Defendant’s registered information in light of the content of the crime of this case, which was improper to exempt the Defendant from disclosure disclosure order.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case committed the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant using the camera function inside the mobile phone to take the 5 damaged women’s legs, and that the crime of this case was not committed, and that the risk of recidivism is high, the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to the order to attend the lecture for sexual assault treatment for 2 years and 40 hours during the period of six months of the suspension of execution, is too 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, disclosure of personal information of a sex offender should be given to the public, and there are special circumstances that need not be given exceptional cases.

If it is judged, it shall be removed.

There is a special reason not to disclose personal information.

Determination of whether a case constitutes “a case to be determined” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, characteristics of the offender, such as the type, motive, process of the relevant crime, consequence, seriousness of the crime, etc., the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to an disclosure order or notification order, the preventive effects and effects of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effects of the protection of the victims of sexual assault (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do163, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant has no history of criminal punishment; in this case, the recidivism of the Defendant is also conducted solely on the registration of personal information.