The judgment below

While examining the reasoning of the instant case based on records and evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (special robbery, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the law on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (special robbery, rape

In addition, there are special circumstances in which the court below shall not disclose or notify personal information for reasons as stated in its reasoning.

It is difficult to see

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, it is justifiable to maintain the judgment of the first instance that ordered the disclosure and notification of information on the defendant for three years, and there is no illegality as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

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