A. The lower court’s sentencing (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with a maximum of 7 million won, 40 hours) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information.

2. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the above sentence on account of the fact that the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in the trial, which the lower court has already determined the sentence at the lower court, were sufficiently taken into account while determining the sentence at the lower court, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

B. As to the unfair argument regarding exemption from disclosure and notification order of personal information.