The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court did not submit new materials for sentencing, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including that the Defendant agreed with the victims and that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

We do not accept the prosecutor's argument that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.

2. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no history of sexual crime against the Defendant to determine whether to exempt the disclosure or notification of personal information; and (b) there is a special reason that the Defendant should not disclose or notify the personal information of the Defendant, taking into account the motive and method of the crime.

The decision is judged.

It is justifiable that the court below exempted the defendant from issuing an order to disclose and notify personal information.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the conclusion prosecutor is dismissed for reasons.