All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentencing of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.

2) It is improper for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from disclosure or notification order with respect to the Defendant’s personal information.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment as to the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing by the original judgment is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the defendant and the prosecutor as the elements of sentencing by this court are already withdrawn during the pleadings of the lower court, or appear to have been sufficiently taken into account in determining the punishment against the defendant, and there is no change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with regard to the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Although the defendant asserts that he would deny the crime in the court below, but the court recognized the whole crime in this case and reflects the mistake, it is difficult to regard the change of circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below.

In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, where the lower court comprehensively takes into account the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the conditions of the instant argument and the sentencing indicated in the record, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines based on the sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable as it was conducted within the reasonable scope of its discretion, even if both parties were to file an appeal.

This part of the argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not have been punished for sexual assault crimes, the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, and the type of the instant crime.