A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

To order the defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

The defendant shall be subject to employment restrictions for each three years at child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for disabled persons.

The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, confiscation, probation, 40 hours of order to attend a course, three years of order to restrict employment) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) (amended by Act No. 15904), which was effective June 12, 2019, provides that where the court declares a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, the court shall make an order (hereinafter referred to as “order for Employment Restriction”) to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prohibit persons from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities 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 punishment is imposed, the date on which the punishment becomes final and conclusive) is suspended or exempted by the judgment. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) shall also apply to persons who committed a sex offense before this Act enters into force.

The crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media) and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes falls under a sex offense subject to Article 59-3(1) of the same Act, and thus, this court must render a judgment as to whether to issue an employment restriction order or not to exempt the accused. Considering the method and mode of the crime indicated in the records of this case, the relationship between the accused and the victim, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., there is no special circumstance that does not significantly lower the risk of recidivism or to restrict employment. Meanwhile, the court, along with the judgment of this case, issued an employment restriction order to the accused at the same time as the judgment of this case, so the lower court

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows.

Article 14(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 (a) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (the point of repeated transmission, such as the language and text causing fears of fears and incompetence), Article 283(1) of each Criminal Act (the point of intimidation), Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the point of obscenity using a communications medium), selection of imprisonment for each sentence

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order to complete programs;

Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. An employment restriction order;

The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Article 2 of the Addenda to Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018); the main sentence of Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare

However, considering the fact that the defendant sent a text message which threatens a victim, including the video images that had taken a face of similarity with the victim upon the victim's request by the victim in an internal relationship, and that the nature of the crime was very poor, and that the defendant was unable to be used by the victim and his/her family members want to be punished by a severe punishment against the defendant, it is reasonable to impose a sentence on the defendant. Other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, are determined as the sentence as above.

Judge Cho Sung-hoon (Presiding Judge)