All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: It is unreasonable to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose or notify despite the risk of recidivism. 2) The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court determined that there was a special circumstance that should not disclose the Defendant’s personal information, considering the following as a whole: (i) the Defendant did not have any previous conviction; (ii) the Defendant voluntarily ceased to commit a crime; (iii) the Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant was sentenced; (iv) the registration of personal information; and (v) the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s entry due to the Defendant’s age, social relationship; (iv) disclosure order; and (v) the disclosure order and notification order. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the court records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable; and (v) the Prosecutor’s mistake of facts and did not err

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, this case is about the attempted rape of the Defendant by preparing a deadly weapon in advance and inducing the victim, and the crime is a bad in light of the planning of the crime or the risk of the means of the crime.

The injured party, along with the accused who is between his former male-gu and his father-gu, has left the remains of the former male-child family in a charnel house where the remains of the former male-child family are installed.

In addition, the above crime was committed by the defendant, and the defendant was faced with severe mental impulses and was provided with counseling several times.

The defendant was unable to receive a written answer from the victim until the trial of the case.

However, the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects it.