Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability or mental health disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won, completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 40 hours, and one year of an employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “former Welfare of Disabled Persons Act”) which was amended by Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019 (hereinafter “former Welfare of Disabled Persons Act”) provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order to prevent persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or from providing employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years; however, where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or there is any special circumstance that does not restrict employment, it may choose not to issue an employment restriction order.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

As such, Article 59-3 of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case after the decision of the court below was made and applied, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed sexual crimes was sentenced to employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction.

However, since an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that is imposed simultaneously with a judgment of a sex offense case, if an employment restriction order is imposed on the defendant, it shall be reversed without any error in the judgment below, and in this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is

B. However, as above.