2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the argument of sentencing and light, and agree with the prosecutor's argument that the defendant had sexual intercourses with the victim who was female-child at the time, and the defendant and the victim knew it to the people who were in common, and show it to the people who were in common. However, it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable in light of all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and character, and environment.

B. 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 from June 12, 2019, provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order to prohibit the operation of welfare facilities for the disabled or the employment or actual labor of welfare facilities for the disabled from being employed for a certain period not exceeding 10 years. However, in cases where the risk of recidivism is considerably low or there is any special circumstance that does not restrict employment, an employment restriction order may not be issued.

However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that Article 59-3 of the above amended Act provides that the above amended Act shall also apply to persons who have committed a sex offense and have not received final and conclusive judgment prior to its enforcement, so this case shall also be subject to the above amended Act. Thus, this court shall determine whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the accused.

The age, conviction, existence of criminal records, family environment, ...