The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s argument that the sentencing is unfair is too uneasible and unfair.

2) There are special circumstances in which disclosure of personal information against the illegal defendant is exempted from disclosure disclosure disclosure order.

Although the court below did not see it, it is unreasonable to exempt the disclosure notification order.

2. Determination

A. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the crime of special rape in this case was committed in the form of so-called leap, and the nature of the crime is extremely poor. In particular, the victim seems to have been punished by imprisonment for the crime of special rape in the form of so-called leap, and the victim seems to have been suffering from considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation, and the defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim up to the heart. However, although there are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant’s confession and reflects the crime in this case, and the degree of tangible force during the crime of special rape in this case is not more serious. The victim of the crime of special rape in this case did not have any record of agreement with the victim of the crime of this case, there is no history of criminal punishment, and there is room for edification and improvement with the victim of the special rape in this case, and D, an accomplice, who is an accomplice, appears to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this case, taking into account various conditions of sentencing in this case, including age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is reasonable, and this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of exemption from disclosure notification order, the prosecutor’s disclosure notification order should not be disclosed as to “personal information” provided for in the proviso of Article 49(1) and the proviso of Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.