Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Since the statements of the victim are inconsistent and contradictory to the actions of the victim, credibility is insufficient.Although the statements of the victim in domestic affairs are true, the defendant's act does not constitute an indecent act.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (the fine of KRW 5 million, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours, and the three years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and enforced as of June 12, 2019, Article 59-3(1) of the aforementioned Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act and has not been finally and conclusively determined, this court should examine and determine whether to issue an employment restriction order to a person with welfare facilities for disabled persons and the period of employment restriction.

The above employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that is sentenced simultaneously with the conviction of a sex offense case, and even if there is no error in the conviction part of the judgment below, the judgment below is no longer maintained, but the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and

3. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the victim’s statement that the Defendant committed an indecent act, such as the entries in the judgment, was reliable, and that the facts constituting the crime in its judgment can be recognized.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in comparison with the evidence examined by the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

4. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal.