A. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, probation, community service order, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending order) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant and the requester for probation order from the disclosure and notification order of personal information (hereinafter “Defendant”).

2. Determination

A. Defendant case 1) Determination of the assertion of unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime against the aged victim and the nature of the instant crime is not good, and that the mental impulse incurred by the instant crime is not less exceptionally. On the other hand, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, nor the type and the degree of indecent act committed by the Defendant, and the fact that the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment is more favorable to the Defendant. Considering the aforementioned favorable or unfavorable sentencing factors, the scope of the recommended sentence guidelines, and other various sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable to reverse the order to disclose or notify personal information, and the lower court did not have any history of punishment against the Defendant as a sexual crime, and the instant crime is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant visiting the Defendant’s residence and the Defendant’s family relation are likely to be habitually sexual assault.