The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant in the case of this court, which dismissed the prosecutor's claim regarding the case of protecting observation order, and only the prosecutor appealed for the defendant's case on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and erred in sentencing (the prosecutor stated in the petition of appeal that the scope of appeal is "the whole judgment," but only stated the case number as "Seoul District Court 2019 Gohap 307, and the reason for appeal is specified as "the Jeonju District Court 2019 Gohap 307," and only states the case number as "the former District Court 2019 Gohap 307". However, as long as the prosecutor filed an appeal against the defendant in the case of this case, it shall be deemed that the appeal was filed in respect of the case of the request for protect observation order under Articles 9 (8) and 21-8 of the Electronic Monitoring

The sentence of the lower court (a year and six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of three years, and an order for medical treatment of mental illness, such as editing illness, and an order for medical treatment, medical care, and custody for the period of observing and protecting the protection (Article 44-2(1) and (2), and Article 2-3 subparag. 1 of the Medical Care and Custody Act, 40 hours of taking a lecture for sexual assault treatment, five years of employment restriction) against the accused and the claimant for an order to observe the protective order (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) is unreasonable.

However, it is unfair that the court below exempted the order of disclosure and notification of personal information, considering the criminal records of the criminal defendant who was unjustly exempted from the order of disclosure and notification of personal information, and the contents of the crime in this case.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial on the Defendant case, and the sentencing of the first instance 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 victim caused sexual humiliation and mental pain due to the instant crime.