아동복지법위반(아동에대한음행강요ㆍ매개ㆍ성희롱등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.
1. The grounds of appeal (unfair punishment) asserts that the Defendant’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of employment restriction orders, such as children and juveniles-related periods) of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the above punishment of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “Amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and enforced on June 12, 2019 (hereinafter “the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) provides that when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits persons with welfare facilities or persons with welfare facilities from operating welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years, or from providing employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for a certain period. However, such order may not be issued in cases where the risk of re-offending is remarkably low or where special circumstances exist,
In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.
As such, Article 59-3 of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case after the decision of the court below was made and applied, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed sexual crimes was sentenced to employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction.
However, an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that declared simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety, even if there is no error in the judgment of the court below.
3. The judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio reversal, and it is in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining each of the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing