The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order, and forty hours of lecture for the treatment of sexual assault) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal.

Article 56(1) main text of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) that was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; and enforced July 17, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that where the court issues a sentence or medical care for sex offenses against children or juveniles or sex offenses against which they are subject to a final judgment, it shall impose an employment restriction order that prohibits a child or youth-related institution, etc. from operating such institution for a given period, or from providing employment or actual labor to such institution, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the said Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 shall also apply to those who have committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the said Act, and have not been finally binding.

The crime of this case constitutes a sex offense subject to Article 56 of the above Act, and at the same time, the judgment of this case and the judgment of this case should be sentenced to an employment restriction order against the defendant. The order of employment restriction is an incidental disposition simultaneously with a judgment of conviction and where all or part of the disposition is illegal, the order should be reversed in whole, even if there is no error in the remaining part of the defendant's case.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【Judgment to be used again】 Facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court and summary of evidence are all the facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence.