Considering the risk of recidivism of the defendant, it is improper that the court below exempted the defendant from an order to disclose personal information.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) The lower court, as stated in its holding, found the Defendant favorable to the Defendant [the crime of attempted rape during the instant crime, is recognized, the part of the crime of rape is considered to have been committed, and the crime of this case is committed on January 18, 2020, the crime of this case is committed in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Residence) and the latter concurrent relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, it is necessary to consider equality with the case where the victim has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the victim due to his own mental distress and thereby, it does not interfere with the daily life of the victim, etc.

3) The Defendant also admitted the part of the injury that was denied by the lower court for the first time in the trial. In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the sentence of the lower court is heavier than that of the lower court.