The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

An order to disclose or notify personal information under the Act on the Protection of Children’s Juveniles’ Sex Protection violates personal rights and privacy, and cannot be deemed unconstitutional since it violates the principle of prohibition of double punishment, the principle of equality or proportionality (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2014HunBa68, 164, May 26, 2016). The assertion that an order to disclose or notify information is unconstitutional or unreasonable cannot be accepted.

When filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant asserted only the illegality of disclosure order and notification order and the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of the appeal, and the lower court did not ex officio consider the matters alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the lower court’s assertion that there was an error of mistake or lack of deliberation due to a violation of the rules of evidence is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383, Paragraph 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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

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