The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended sentence, four years of attending sexual assault treatment programs, and 80 hours of community service) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information, even though the lower court should disclose or notify the Defendant’s personal information, given that the risk of recidivism is high in light of the criminal law of the Defendant’s wrongful exemption from disclosure or notification order.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope. In our criminal litigation law, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area for the

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from reversal of the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, and to impose a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Since new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the health department and the appellate court’s trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and even considering the reasons for the sentencing stated by the lower court, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion by putting too un

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

B. The punishment of sexual crimes with respect to unjust arguments regarding exemption from disclosure and notification orders.