The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower judgment (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures, and 120 hours of community service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable to exempt the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record; and (c) the Defendant did not have any record of the crime except that sentenced twice to a fine due to a violation of the Water Quality and Quality Conservation Act, a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; (d) the Defendant did not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the background and motive leading to the instant crime; and (e) other matters concerning the sentencing as indicated in the records and changes of the instant case, it cannot be deemed unfair that the

B. The lower court’s determination on the part of the prosecutor’s exemption from disclosure order and notification order is based on a comprehensive consideration of the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, type, motive, process, consequence, and seriousness of the instant crime, the degree of disadvantage and expected side effects of the Defendant’s entrance due to the disclosure order or notification order, the effect of preventing sexual crimes subject to registration that may be achieved therefrom, and the effect of protecting the victims, etc., under Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the Defendant shall not disclose personal information pursuant to the proviso of Articles 49(1) and 50(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

After the judgment, the defendant exempted the disclosure order or notification order.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, it is legitimate.