If the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is closely compared to the circumstances admitted by the court below, the judgment of the court below is deemed correct.

The lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

Defendant

We do not accept the argument.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing by both parties, and the lower court’s sentencing is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court did not submit new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.

In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in one record and pleading, the lower court’s sentence exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the court below is unfair are rejected.

3. There are special circumstances in which the disclosure of the personal information of the defendant should not be made in light of the various circumstances indicated by the lower court, including the fact that the defendant had no record of sexual assault, etc. in determining unfair grounds for exemption from disclosure disclosure order

Recognized.

We affirm the judgment of the court below to the same purport.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

4. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is dismissed as all are without merit.