2. In full view of the circumstances after the crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., including the fact that the Defendant was the first offender, and the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment, as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 47(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Article 49(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; Article 49(1) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Article 50(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the defendant’s age and family environment; the defendant’s relationship and social relation; the victim’s relationship; the details and motive of the crime; the method and consequence of the crime; the degree and expected side effects of the defendant’s entry; the preventive effect of the sexual crime subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom; and the protection effect of the victim, etc.)

Since it is clear that the part of "a disclosure order or notification order is not issued to the defendant)" has been omitted by mistake, it shall be corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.