The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (4 million won of fine, 400,000 won of order to complete a program) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The main sentence of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 1589), which was effective June 12, 2019, provides that where the court declares a sentence or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall impose an order to operate a child-related institution or to prohibit a child-related institution from providing employment or actual labor (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) for a certain period from the date when the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final, the date on which the sentence becomes final) is suspended or exempted by a judgment, at the same time as the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case, and the proviso to Article 29-3(1) provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk

In addition, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 29-3 (1) of the Child Welfare Act applies to a person who committed a crime related to child abuse before the enforcement of the above Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment.

The Defendant’s violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) constitutes a child abuse-related crime to which Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act applies, and thus, the court shall decide on whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order or exempted a child-related institution.

Considering the method and attitude of the crime appearing in the record, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the circumstances before and after the crime, there is no special circumstance that the defendant would not significantly lower the risk of recidivism or restrict employment.

On the other hand, the court issued an employment restriction order to the defendant at the same time as the judgment of this case.