2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, as well as the circumstances properly explained in the grounds of sentencing, takes into account the sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the circumstance after the crime, and even if there are no particular changes in the sentencing conditions in the trial compared with the victim and the Defendant’s drinking, the circumstances after the indecent act, and the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor

B. Ex officio determination as to whether to issue an employment restriction order, Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, is enforced as of June 12, 2019, where a court declares a sex crime (referring to a sex crime defined in Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime subject to children and juveniles defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) and imposes a sentence or medical treatment and custody on a sex offender, it shall issue an order to operate welfare facilities for disabled persons, or to make them find employment or provide actual labor at welfare facilities for disabled persons (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”), and the court shall issue an employment restriction order as well as an employment restriction order as prescribed in Article 59-3(2) of the same Act.