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.

The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the amount of KRW 5 million, the amount of KRW 40,000, the amount of KRW 5000,000, the amount of sexual assault treatment program program program program

We examine the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment.

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.

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Juvenile Protection Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before this Act enters into force and has not received a final judgment.

“......”

On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of forced indecent conduct among the facts charged in the instant case, and Article 56 of the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act raises objection.