All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

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

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

2) Although the Defendant was highly likely to repeat a sexual crime, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from the disclosure and notification order of the personal information of the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment regarding each of the unfair arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing of the original judgment 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). The circumstances asserted by the defendant and the prosecutor as the elements of sentencing in this court are already discovered in the hearing process of the lower court, or are likely to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the punishment against the defendant, and there is no change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters that are the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

The defendant was denied by the court below in this court

Although the crime of kidnapping indecent act is recognized, it is difficult to regard it as a change in circumstances that can change the punishment of the court below.

When the court below comprehensively takes into account the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments in this case and the records, as well as the scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the court below's sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable, even in light of the circumstances where both parties are on the grounds of appeal, given that the court below's sentencing was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

B. As to the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification order, the lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant had no record of punishment for sexual crimes, and personal information of the Defendant.