The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five 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 (a fine of five million won, order to complete a program 40 hours, and one year of employment restriction order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) (amended by Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex offense, the court shall, by judgment, order the operation of welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or the provision of actual labor to persons with disabilities for a certain period from the date on which 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 and conclusive) or the execution thereof is suspended or exempted (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) to be sentenced simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case, and the proviso to Article 59-3(1)

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act and has not been finally determined.

Since the crime of indecent act by compulsion falls under a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the above Act applies, this court should decide on whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant.

Considering the method and attitude of the crime indicated in the instant records, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., there is no special circumstance that does not significantly lower the risk of recidivism or restrict employment.

On the other hand, the court should issue an employment restriction order to the defendant at the same time with the judgment of this case, so the court below has no choice but to reverse all of it.