The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the defendant and the prosecutor): Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, completion of sexual assault treatment programs 40 hours, and confiscation);

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; effective from June 12, 2019; hereinafter referred to as “Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years, but shall not issue an employment restriction order in cases where the risk of re-offending is considerably low or any other special circumstance that does not restrict employment exists.

However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that Article 59-3 shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense and has not received a final and conclusive judgment prior to the enforcement of the Act, and some of the facts charged in this case [the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes") is a sex offense, and thus, it is necessary to examine and judge whether or not an employment restriction order should

The judgment on the employment restriction order under Article 59-3 (1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act is an incidental disposition to be sentenced simultaneously with the conviction of a sex offense case, and all of the judgment below should be reversed even if there is no error in the remaining defendant's case, so the entire judgment of the court below

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal. Thus, without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.