A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

With respect to the punishment of the court below (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of sexual assault therapy course, 3 years of restriction on employment, etc.), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the prosecutor as it is too unreasonable.

Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018 and enforced from June 12, 2019, provides that where the court imposes a punishment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sexual crime"), the court shall, unless it considers that there are special circumstances that the risk of recidivism is significantly low or that the employment should not be restricted, sentence the defendant simultaneously with an order restricting the employment of the disabled person, and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that the aforementioned amended provision shall also apply to a person who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the aforementioned provision and has not been finally determined.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant who committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Ameras, Use and Screening of Cameras, etc.) corresponding to sex crimes, and did not render judgment on an employment restriction order under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and did not make a judgment on the order

However, in full view of the developments and contents of the instant crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Act”), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, social relationship, the effect of preventing sex crimes that may be achieved by the employment restriction order, and the disadvantages and side effects of the Defendant’s admission, there is no special circumstance that the Defendant would have significantly low risk of recidivism or should not restrict the Defendant’s employment in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities. Therefore, the lower court should have against the Defendant.