성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(성적목적다중이용장소침입)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
The defendant is a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.
1. The summary of grounds for appeal (the original decision: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, 80 hours for completing sexual assault treatment programs, disclosure and notification three years, three years restricted on employment, and confiscation);
2. 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 prevent persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities, or from providing employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for a given period not exceeding 10 years, but shall not issue an employment restriction order in cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or any other special circumstance that does not restrict employment exists.
However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that Article 59-3 of the amended Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before the enforcement and have not received final and conclusive judgments.
As such, according to the enforcement of Article 59-3 of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the defendant who committed a sex offense prior to the enforcement of the above Act shall also be tried and tried on whether to issue an order of restriction on employment under the above Act and the period of restriction on employment under the above Act. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, but omitted the judgment on whether to issue an order
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for ex officio reversal of the judgment below, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
[The reasons for the judgment of multiple court] The summary of criminal facts and evidence is recognized by the court.