강제추행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment for four months, the suspension of execution for one year, the community service order of 40 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 40 hours) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable;
2. Determination
A. In full view of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including: (a) examining the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; and (c) it is difficult to view the degree of indecent act in this case as being serious; and (d) there is no previous conviction in the same kind; and (b) it is difficult for the prosecutor
B. Ex officio determination as to whether to issue an employment restriction order, and Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019, as well as Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Disabled Persons, which was enforced on June 12, 2019, declared 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), where the court declares a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction period”), it shall issue an order to operate welfare facilities for disabled persons, or to provide actual labor to welfare facilities for disabled persons (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”), concurrently with the determination of a sex offense case.