A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

B. It is improper that the court below's improper exemption from disclosure disclosure order did not issue an order to disclose personal information to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court regarding the determination of sentencing under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness. In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court and the first instance’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2), based on the foregoing legal doctrine, health care for the instant case, the instant crime was committed by the victim or the victim’s victim’s difficulty or resist who intruded with the contents of the Defendant, and the victim and the victim did not suffer considerable mental pain or injury from the victim.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and that the mistake is divided and reflected, and the defendant was punished in excess of the fine prior to the crime of this case.