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 argument of sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, since the new materials of sentencing were not submitted by the said court.

In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant was excessively unhutiled and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The prosecutor’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing of the court below is not accepted.

2. The lower court, ex officio, found the Defendant guilty of all the criminal facts of the instant crime interfering with the instant business and sex offenses subject to registration under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”), and found that the instant crime was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which committed a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

In the light of this, one sentence of imprisonment was sentenced.

The registration period of personal information against the defendant is 15 years under Article 45 (1) 3 and 45 (2) of the current Punishment of Sexual Violence Act. In light of the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (voluntary indecent act) which causes the registration of personal information against the defendant and the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the severity of the crime, the registration period is deemed legitimate.

Therefore, this Court does not set the period of registration of personal information against the defendant more short-term.

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