The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act does not constitute the elements of the crime of indecent act inasmuch as there was no exercise of force to the extent that it makes it difficult for the victim to resist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse”) restricts the employment of a child-related institution, etc., for ten years from the date on which the execution of all or part of a punishment or treatment and custody for a child or juvenile, or a sex offense subject to adults (hereinafter referred to as “sex offense”) is completed, or the execution of such punishment or treatment and custody is postponed or exempted, on a uniform basis, for ten years from the date on which the former Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; however, Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (excluding the amended Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse), which was enacted on July 17, 2018;

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.

“......”

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court is guilty of the instant indecent act.