All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. According to the record, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted that the order to disclose personal information was unfair, along with the sentencing unfair on the grounds of the appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court did not recognize mental and physical weakness and that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable for the lower court to have convicted all of the charges of intrusion on the structure of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the objects and timing of intrusion on a structure.

(c)

In full consideration of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, type of crime, motive, process of crime, and consequence, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment that issued an order to disclose and notify information for a period of three years only for a crime violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (indecent act by force upon residence) on the ground that the lower court was prohibited from disclosing personal information on the Defendant

(d)

The argument that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sentencing factors constitutes an unfair allegation of sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of an unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, publicly announced places for sexual purposes, which are the primary charges of this case.