A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

B. It is improper for the lower court to have exempted the Defendant from disclosure and notification of personal information.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances a prosecutor asserts as an element of sentencing in this court are already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Considering the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant arguments and records, and the scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable, given that the prosecutor’s appeal is based on the grounds of appeal.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to the unjust assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order, the lower court, as stated in its reasoning, comprehensively takes account of the following: (a) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment; (b) the registration of personal information of the Defendant and the order to attend school for the treatment of sexual assault appears to have the effect of preventing re-offending; and (c) the Defendant’s age, occupation, environment, social ties; (d) the adverse effect that may result in the Defendant’s disadvantage and anticipated side effects due to disclosure and notification order; and (e) the prevention effect of sexual crimes