The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant and the claimant for the order to observe the protective order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is unfair because it is too uneasible to the sentence of imprisonment (four years of suspended execution of imprisonment with prison labor for three years, three years of observation of protection, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment, 120 hours of community service, etc.).

B. In light of the method and nature of the crime committed by the criminal defendant who was unreasonably exempted from disclosure and notification order, the criminal defendant is likely to recommit a sexual crime.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the defendant from issuing an order to disclose and notify personal information.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act on the basis of statutory punishment, and the fact that the sentencing is made within the scope of discretion after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance judgment, and even when considering all the reasons for sentencing, the lower court’s judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2) The Defendant’s age, occupation, social relationship, criminal record (the fact that there is no record of sexual crime) and the crime of this case, which are acknowledged by the record, as to the unjust assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order.