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. It is unreasonable to order the Defendant and the person subject to a request for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to disclose or notify the personal information of the Defendant. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, 120 hours of sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of disclosure of personal information, and 5 years of notification order) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) Since the Defendant’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order risks re-offending, the lower court’s dismissal of the request for an attachment order is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s dismissal of the request is too unjustifiable and unreasonable

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

A. As to the Defendant’s unfair assertion of disclosure or notification order, the crimes Nos. 1, 3, and 4 of the facts constituting a sexual crime subject to registration under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below shall be exempted only where the above Act, in principle, requires the disclosure and notification of personal information of a person who committed a sexual crime, and where

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in light of the defendant's records of crime, the type, motive, process, result and seriousness of each crime, the defendant's age and family relation, etc., if the defendant's personal information is disclosed to the public, compared to the degree of disadvantage and expected side effects of the defendant's family member's personal information disclosure, the prevention of sexual violence crime and the victim's protection effect can be achieved more than that of the disadvantage and expected side effects of the defendant's family member. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's personal information disclosure should not be disclosed.

This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the lower court on the grounds that each of the instant crimes is 6 years of age and 8 years of age, each of the instant crimes on the playground.