The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of two years and six months of imprisonment, a stay of execution of four years, a course of sexual assault therapy of forty hours, a community service of 120 hours) declared by the court below is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, prior to the ex officio determination of January 16, 2018, places restrictions on the employment of a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., in a uniform manner, on a person who was finally and conclusively declared a sentence of a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sex offense”), for ten years from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody was completed, suspended, or exempted.

However, Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352 and enforced July 17, 2018, provides that when a court issues a sentence of punishment or medical treatment and custody for sex crimes, it shall issue an order to restrict employment, etc. to institutions related to children and juveniles by setting a period of restriction on employment at the same time as the judgment

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

As such, Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse applies to this case, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed a sex offense prior to the enforcement of the above Act is sentenced to an employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction.

However, an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that declares simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and even if there is no illegality in the judgment below's conviction part, the judgment below cannot be maintained any longer.

3. The judgment of the court below on the ground of ex officio reversal, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing.