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, in full view of all the elements of sentencing indicated in the pleadings of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and motive for committing the crime, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is excessively unhutiled.

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

2. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant’s age, previous conviction, and the risk of repeating a crime; (b) details of the crime; and (c) the degree of disadvantage the Defendant entered by an order of disclosure disclosure; (d) anticipated side effects; and (e) comparative balancing between expected side effects of disclosure of personal information and expected profits, there are special circumstances in which disclosure of personal information of the Defendant should not be notified

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.