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

B. It is improper for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure or notification order.

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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances the Prosecutor asserts as an element of sentencing are already revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. No particular change of circumstances is found in matters subject to sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Considering the circumstances that the lower court rendered 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 commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unreasonable, given that the prosecutor’s appeal is based on the grounds of appeal.

The defendant is a juvenile under the age of 19 at the time of the prosecution of this case and does not apply the sentencing criteria. It is inappropriate for the court below to determine punishment in consideration of the scope of recommended sentencing according to the sentencing guidelines.

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

B. As to the wrongful assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order, the lower court appears to have the effect of preventing recidivism even by the Defendant’s registration of personal information of the Defendant and the lecture attendance order for the treatment of sexual assault since the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment. In addition, the Defendant’s age, occupation, environment, social relationship, disclosure and notification order is disadvantageous to the Defendant.