The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of protection observation, and 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment program) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

The exemption from disclosure and notification order is unfair, and it is also necessary to attach an electronic device tracking device to the person who requested the attachment order in light of all the circumstances.

2. The lower court’s sentencing judgment, based on the following factors: (a) the repeatedness of the instant crime; (b) the suffering of victims therefrom; (c) efforts to prevent the recidivism of certain victims against the Defendant; and (d) the sentencing guidelines, etc., as indicated in the sentencing review process of the lower court’s judgment, exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion in its discretion.

No assessment may be conducted.

In addition, there is no or insufficient circumstance or data to see that it is unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the course of the deliberation of the sentencing of the political party.

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) acknowledged a special circumstance in which personal information shall not be disclosed or notified to the public; (b) exempted the Defendant from an order to disclose or notify the information; and (c) dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case; and (d) in light of relevant evidence, pleading, legal doctrine, etc., the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and did not err

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 364(4) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders, and Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc.).