For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a three-year order to disclose and notify personal information for three years, and a three-year employment restriction order with respect to child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. related to welfare facilities for the disabled.

In full view of the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, criminal record and type of crime, criminal process, result, circumstance after the crime, etc., the court below is just to order the Defendant to disclose and notify personal information for three years, and to order employment restrictions for three years with respect to children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for disabled persons. There is no error in the misapprehension

According to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.