성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(특수준강제추행)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.
However, as to the Defendants, this is against the Defendants.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) was uniformly restricted the employment of persons who were sentenced to punishment for sexual crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or sex offenses against children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “sexual crimes”).
However, according to Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 and enforced as of June 12, 2019, where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall issue an order not to operate welfare facilities for a certain period of time or provide employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for disabled persons (hereinafter “order for employment restriction”) simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case: Provided, That an employment restriction order need not be issued in cases where the risk of recidivism is considerably low or where there are special circumstances that prevent employment restriction.
Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that "The amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received a final and conclusive judgment," and the amended Act shall also apply to this case.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not issue an employment restriction order or decide whether to exempt the Defendants from employment under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities is no longer able to maintain.
3. In conclusion, the court below has a ground for reversal ex officio.