The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the defendant from the disclosure disclosure notification order, even though there are no special circumstances that may not disclose the personal information of the defendant that was improper to exempt the defendant from disclosure disclosure disclosure notification order.

Judgment

A. As to the unfair argument on sentencing, the Defendant taken a picture of the victim’s bridge using mobile phone camera functions in urban buses.

In addition, even though the defendant had been subject to a serious punishment (one-time penalty, one-time suspension of execution), he committed the crime of this case in consideration of the fact that the victims want to be punished, and that the victims want to be punished, the criminal liability of the defendant is not less complicated.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime from the investigative agency to reflect in depth the Defendant’s mistake, and, in the future, would not repeat the said mistake while receiving mental treatment.

It is harding to do so.

The defendant deleted the photographs of the victims from one of the victims, and did not have been distributed externally.

In full view of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, it seems more reasonable to impose the Defendant’s imprisonment and give him/her an opportunity to repeat as a member of society only once, rather than immediately isolation from society. As such, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

(b) exemption from disclosure notification orders;