A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from the order to disclose and notify personal information and the order to restrict employment.

B. 1) The lower court’s sentence (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court exempted the Defendant from disclosure and notification of personal information, considering the following circumstances: (a) there is no criminal history; (b) the character and conduct of the Defendant is expected to be significantly improved by the enforcement of the main sentence and incidental disposition imposed on the Defendant; (c) the Defendant’s age, family environment; (d) the details and details of the crime; and (e) the preventive effect that can be achieved by the disclosure and notification order and the employment restriction order; and (e) the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entry; and (e) the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed and notified; and (e) there are special circumstances that the Defendant should not be an employment restriction order.

In full view of the various circumstances shown in the records and pleadings of this case, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

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

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the instant crime was transmitted after the Defendant threatened the victim, who is a juvenile under the age of 13, to capture the face pictures of the transmitted victim while carrying them, and had the victim, who is under the age of 13, take the photographs of the victim, such as the chest and her sex, and then was transmitted.

The victim is a juvenile whose sexual identity has not yet been formed and who is token by this case.