A. The court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unhutiled and unfair.

B. Although it can be deemed that the defendant's improper assertion of the disclosure order and notification order is likely to repeat the crime, the court below's exemption from the disclosure order and notification order of personal information is improper.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant committed a somewhat contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the investigative agency recognizes the crime since the investigation agency, the defendant has no criminal power except twice before and after the ten-year fine, and the victim does not want punishment against the defendant before the prosecution.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant had attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim who lost his/her ability to protect himself/herself under the influence of alcohol, and the victim has received a big mental impulse due to this, etc.

In addition, the sentencing guidelines are not applied to the criminal defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime. However, the sentencing guidelines are not applied to the criminal defendant's criminal punishment law in September - July 7.

Considering B, since the court below's sentence imposed on the defendant cannot be deemed to be light, the prosecutor's argument in this part is without merit.

B. In full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, family environment, social relationship, previous convictions (two times prior to a fine) and the risk of repeating a crime (no such criminal history), which are acknowledged by the record as to the unfair argument of the disclosure order and notification order, the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed or notified, and the prosecutor’s assertion on this part is also relevant.