A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

A. Of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the following facts with respect to the facts constituting the crime of the instant case No. 2018 high group 1890.

The fact that the victim G was contacted with the bucks of the victim G, but did not have any knife.

Although there was a contact with the victim H's her her m, the victim did not put his her her mar with his her her mar.

The fact that the victim J puts his hand on the shoulder, but the chest was not found.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to editing and shocking disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes.

(c)

The sentence of the court below against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable (the order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 10 months or 40 hours).

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal.

Article 56(1) main text of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018 and enforced as of July 17, 2018, provides that where the court issues a punishment or a treatment and custody for a sex offense against a child or youth or a sex offense against an adult, it shall issue an employment restriction order to prevent a child or youth-related institution from operating such institution, etc. or from providing employment or actual labor to a child or youth-related institution, etc. for a given period simultaneously with a judgment of a sex offense case. Article 3 of the Addenda of the aforementioned Act provides that Article 56 of the aforementioned Act provides that the amended provisions shall apply to a person who has committed a sex offense before the aforementioned Act enters into force and has not been finally binding.

Each of the crimes of this case constitutes a sex offense governed by Article 56 of the above Act, and simultaneously with the judgment of this case, the order of restriction on employment should be issued to the defendant, and the order of restriction on employment is an incidental disposition simultaneously with the judgment of conviction and where all or part of the disposition is illegal, the remaining part of the case is not erroneous.