The judgment below

The appeal filed by both the defendant and the prosecutor on the part of the defendant case shall be dismissed.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) against the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable. 2) There are special circumstances that the Defendant should not issue an disclosure and notification order, and an unfair employment restriction order to the Defendant should not issue an employment restriction order, and the disclosure and notification order to the public and the employment restriction order to the public. The period of five years of disclosure and notification sentenced by the lower court and the period of seven years of employment restriction is too unreasonable.

3) The period of attachment that was sentenced by the lower court to the 20-year attachment order is too long and unreasonable. (b) The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court to the extent that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to each of the unfair arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account all favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The sentence of the court below is recognized to have been appropriately determined in consideration of the main circumstances in full, and there is no change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the appellate court.

Although the Defendant did not shock the impulse to commit the same crime and repeatedly commits the same crime, considering the fact that the result of the damage to the instant itself was not serious, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) that was sentenced close to the lower court’s lower limit (two years and six months of imprisonment) was excessively weak, or was in excess of the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court.

Ultimately, since it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s above arguments are not accepted.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion that disclosure and notification orders and employment restriction orders are unfair, the Defendant also made in 2013.