All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part of the Defendant’s case (1) The sentence imposed on the Defendant and the person against whom an order to attach an electronic device was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) (limited to two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment course) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

(2) The lower court’s failure to impose an order to disclose or disclose personal information on the Defendant, even though there are no special circumstances to prevent the Defendant from disclosing or notifying the personal information.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the Defendant’s request for attachment order even though the Defendant’s risk of repeating sexual crimes.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant case’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the crime of this case is an indecent act on the part of the Defendant’s case, where the Defendant only 3 years old-old female as her own villages and followed by her three-year old-old female as her own villages, and the nature of the crime is not weak.

However, there is no specific criminal power except for the defendant who has been sentenced to a fine of two million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1997, and there is no power to commit a sex crime. The defendant appears to have caused the crime of this case by visiting the mother's home of the victim, the defendant's wife, leakage and other family members wanting to actively assist the defendant in his rehabilitation while suffering from the defendant's wife. It is clear family relation, the defendant's agreement with the mother of the victim is that the defendant must support his wife and two children, the defendant's age, character, environment, health condition, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee, it cannot be deemed unfair because the court below's punishment is too uneasible.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is unfair.