2. Determination

A. In full view of the factors indicated in the record of the instant case’s determination of the unfair argument of sentencing (public prosecutor), the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully taking into account all the circumstances, including the various reasons for sentencing asserted by the public prosecutor, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is modified.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. In accordance with Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018 and enforced from July 17, 2018, the court shall issue an employment restriction order at the same time with the judgment on a sex offense case against a child, juvenile, or adult, but the court shall comprehensively consider the defendant’s age, occupation, existence of punishment for a sex offense, details and motive of the offense, method of and consequence of the offense, seriousness of the offense, etc., there are special circumstances in which the risk of reoffending is significantly low or restrictions on employment should not be imposed pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(1) of the aforementioned amended Act.

Since it is judged, it is not ordered to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.