강제추행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, 80 hours of order, and 3 years of employment restriction) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody by sex offense, it shall, by judgment, impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prevent them from providing employment or actual labor at welfare facilities (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is imposed, the date on which the sentence becomes final, the date on which the sentence becomes final), or from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is suspended or exempted; however, the same shall not apply to cases where
In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense and has not been finally determined prior to the enforcement of the Act.
This case’s indecent act constitutes a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies, and thus, this court should decide on whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the Defendant.
On the other hand, this court should issue an employment restriction order to the defendant at the same time with the judgment of this case. Thus, even if there is no illegality in the remaining part of the judgment below, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds that the court below made an ex officio reversal as seen above, and the following decision is again rendered
another judgment.