All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on exemption from disclosure and notification order of personal information in its reasoning of appeal on May 25, 2018.

Although there was no express assertion, it has been repeatedly asserted to the effect that “the need for disclosure and notification of personal information against the defendant is high,” the argument is understood as above.

In light of the fact that Defendant, a custody applicant and a requester for a protective custody order (the preliminary requester for a protective order; hereinafter “Defendant”) repeatedly committed an indecent act five times or more during two days, and the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s commission of the crime and the method of committing the crime, there is no special circumstance that the Defendant should not disclose and notify the personal information of the Defendant, and there is a need to prevent sexual crimes more than the disadvantage that the Defendant would incur due to the disclosure and notification order of personal information.

Nevertheless, the court below exempted the defendant from the order of disclosure and notification of personal information, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for exception to the order of disclosure and notification of personal information.

2) The reason for appeal asserts that “The reduction of mental and physical weakness against the Defendant is inappropriate” is inappropriate.

However, in light of the fact that the main reason for the prosecutor's appeal was unfair in sentencing, the prosecutor's above assertion does not seem to be an independent mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as to mitigation of mental and physical weakness.

B. In light of the fact that a child appears to have suffered from the early childhood since 2000, the lower court’s measure that reduced the physical and mental weakness against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

(b)an attachment order;