For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court ordered the Defendant to disclose and notify the information on the Defendant for three years, considering that there is no special reason to prevent the Defendant from disclosing and notifying personal information.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "special circumstances where personal information shall not be disclosed" as an exception to disclosure or notification order.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of sentencing review and sentencing determination is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under 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, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above assertion in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant is not a legitimate

Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal, as they are alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant or by the court below that they were not subject to judgment ex officio.

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