2. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant agreed with the victims of each of the instant crimes is the reason for sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, in light of the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in pleadings such as the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is not reasonable. Thus, it is not reasonable for the court below to acknowledge that the defendant's punishment is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the proviso to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, social relation, the details and result of the instant crime; (b) the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the order of employment restriction; (c) the preventive effect of sexual crimes that may be achieved by the order; and (d) the effect of protecting the victims of children, juveniles, etc. from sexual crimes, etc., there are special circumstances where the Defendant may not issue an employment restriction order against the Defendant.

[Determination]

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.