The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor in this court as an element of sentencing are already revealed in the course of the argument of the original court and have been sufficiently considered in the sentencing of the original court. There is no particular change in circumstances that are conditions of sentencing after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion as it is excessively unhued.

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

2. In full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, social relation, criminal records, the risk of recidivism, the details and contents of the crime, the degree of disadvantage the Defendant was put to the public due to an order of disclosure notification, anticipated side effects and the results of comparative balancing between expected interests and the expected effects of the prevention of sexual crimes, etc., there are special circumstances in which disclosure of the Defendant’s personal information should not be disclosed.

Recognized.

We affirm the judgment of the court below to the same purport.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed on the ground of appeal.