A. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for two years and six months, the suspension of execution for three years, the community service order of 200 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 80 hours) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s decision that exempted the Defendant from the disclosure notification order is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the crime of this case’s allegation of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s criminal liability is not weak in light of the following: (a) the Defendant discovered the victim’s entrance and password through the victim’s friendship; (b) opened the entrance and intruded the victim’s residence; and (c) sexual intercourse with the victim in a state in which he is unable to resist under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the victim was suffering from considerable mental suffering due to the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s criminal liability is not easy.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) as the young children of the early 20th century, the Defendant still appeared to have committed a crime at the lower court and the first instance court; (b) there was no record of criminal punishment before committing the instant crime; (c) the victim has given considerable monetary compensation to the victim; and (d) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim; and (c) other various sentencing conditions and arguments, such as the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, and circumstances after committing the instant crime, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. In light of the circumstances indicated in the record and pleadings, such as the fact that the Defendant’s decision on the assertion that the exemption of disclosure notification order is unfair is against the undergraduate students of the age of 23 who did not have any previous criminal record, the agreement is reached with the victim, and the social relationship is obvious, there is a habit of sexual crime against the Defendant.

It is difficult to readily conclude that there is a risk of recommitting a crime.

Therefore, the defendant is against the defendant.