1. According to the records on the Defendant’s case, the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing and misapprehension of the legal principles on disclosure order and notification order as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on quasi-indecent act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unfair

Meanwhile, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below ordered the defendant to disclose information to the public for a period of four years, considering that there are no special circumstances that may not disclose personal information to the defendant for reasons as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the disclosure order

2. With respect to the case for which the request for attachment order is filed, if the defendant files an appeal against the case for which the request for attachment order is filed, the appeal shall be deemed filed.

However, there is no entry of reasons in the petition of appeal and there is no entry of reasons for objection in the appellate brief.

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.