The court below's punishment against the defendant (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, confiscation, 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault therapy, 160 hours of an order to provide community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The defendant voluntarily surrendered, and all of the crimes of this case shows the attitude to see and reflect, and there is no criminal record.

On the other hand, on June 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) taken two photographs of the victim from a cleaning place; (b) stored I; (c) tried to photograph the victim’s sexual intercourse with his image on August 12, 2018; (d) did not appear to have attempted to commit an offense on the wind of the victim after hearing that the victim would have taken the image; and (e) did not appear to have been asked for I to present I from the victim on August 12, 2018; (c) the victim discovered photographs from the Defendant’s cell phone and did not appear to have first committed the crime. Considering the process of the above crime and the process of the crime, the victim did not want to have been subject to pharmacologic treatment; and (d) the victim did not want to have prepared a written agreement with the court for punishment of the Defendant, such as the victim’s 20th anniversary of the victim’s request for punishment, and the victim did not want to have any other condition to have been submitted.

3. Determination ex officio on the employment restriction order under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act

Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter referred to as “sexual crime” under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or sex offenses against children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter referred to as “sexual crime”) provides that a person who has been finally and conclusively sentenced to punishment or medical treatment and custody shall not operate welfare facilities or provide employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for a uniform period of ten years (hereinafter referred to as “period between employment restrictions”). However, Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was enforced on June 12, 2019>

Therefore, in the event that a sentence is imposed for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”), it is necessary to examine and judge whether the employment restriction period is imposed simultaneously with the judgment, etc. under Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare

In the instant case, in light of the Defendant’s age, record of punishment, risk of recidivism, background and method of the instant crime, circumstance and method of the instant employment restriction order under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, and the prevention of sexual crimes that may be achieved therefrom, etc., which are acknowledged by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that there are special circumstances where the Defendant’s employment should not be restricted, and thus, the Defendant is not subject to an employment restriction order under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (amended by December 11, 2018) and Article 59-

As such, the judgment of the court below, which did not separately determine whether to issue an employment restriction order under this Act, is enforced prior to the enforcement of Act No. 15904, needs to be modified. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is to be maintained as it is.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ducules

Judge Choi Jong-young