It looks to me as though you had hypospadias as an infant, but it wasn't discovered until your circumcision, and they tried to do an on the spot repair.
The cut line is very low on the underside of the penis, and near to the glans. Where the frenulum would be there isn't actually any of the pale inner foreskin present, but instead there's a square of darker shaft skin which looks out of place. This will be what they used to patch up the hole in the shaft where the urethra was emerging. You can see where this skin is anchored to either side of the glans, this was probably done intentionally in the process, and isn't just a case of adhesions resulting from a sloppy circumcision.
It's not the most cosmetically appealing result, but this is why infant circumcision isn't recommended when hypospadias is suspected. Typically the doctor will wait until a later age to perform a reconstructive procedure, and in the process they can better harvest the tissue of the foreskin to use in closing the hole, and produce a more attractive appearance in the end.
If you're really concerned about it then there are always procedures available, but it would typically involve cutting the two sides and stitching them together, and you'd need to wear a catheter while it healed to keep the shape of the opening and prevent the pressure of the urine from splitting the wound open. If you're not that bothered then I wouldn't worry too much about it; having a long meatus isn't that uncommon, and I've heard that some guys with them like having the tip of the tongue slipped in there during a blow job, so you might be able to use it to your advantage.