The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, type of crime, criminal records, criminal process, result, etc., it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the court of first instance that sentenced the disclosure order and notification order for five years on the ground that there are no special circumstances that the court below should not disclose the defendant's personal information to the public. There is

In light of the records, since the court below cannot be deemed to have seriously infringed the defendant's right of defense by rendering a judgment without complying with the defendant's request for perusal of trial records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's right of request for perusal of trial records and right of defense, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

In addition, pursuant to 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

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