The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Sentencing elements asserted by a prosecutor as the grounds for appeal appear to have been fully considered by the lower court in determining the sentence. Since new sentencing materials were not submitted, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that the Defendant both recognized the crime, and reflects the Defendant’s mistake, the Defendant appears to have provided considerable economic support to the victim’s family by establishing a mutual relationship with the victim’s family for a long time, and the Defendant has no criminal records or criminal records of the same kind exceeding fines, etc., even if considering all of the sentencing factors unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the method of criminal punishment and the age of the victims, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court excessively exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing of the court below is not accepted.

2. The lower court exempted the Defendant from the disclosure and notification order of information and the employment restriction order on the ground that there are special circumstances that the Defendant’s personal information may not be disclosed or notified or the Defendant’s personal information may not be restricted on employment on the basis of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is likely to repeat a crime due to the absence of the history of punishment for sexual crimes, etc., and that the registration of personal information and participation in sexual assault treatment programs alone

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below is justified.