The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The gist of reasons for appeal (the sentencing is unfair and the exemption from order to disclose personal information is unfair);

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service, 160 hours of sexual assault treatment, 40 hours of lecture course) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose personal information, even though the lower court should disclose and notify the Defendant’s personal information in consideration of the mode and frequency of an unfair crime of exemption from disclosure of personal information, plannedness, shortage of behavior control, etc.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”) places restrictions on employment with regard to juvenile-related institutions, etc. for ten years from the date on which the execution of all or part of a punishment or a treatment and custody for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sex offense”) is completed uniformly or suspended or exempted, but Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “former Act”) limits employment with regard to a person subject to employment restrictions for a period not exceeding 10 years from the date on which the execution of such punishment or treatment is suspended or exempted. However, a person subject to employment restrictions at the same time, contrary to the previous provision of Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (excluding any person subject to employment restrictions at the same time, who was sentenced by a court under the same provision of Article 56(1) of the same Act.

If it considers, it is not required to issue an employment restriction order.