The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant commits an indecent act against the victim as described in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the victim made a consistent statement at an investigative agency on the facts of damage, the circumstance of the case, and the situation before and after the occurrence of the case; ② the victim made a report on the fact of damage to the police through the owner of the business immediately after the occurrence of the case; ③ the victim and the owner of the business who made the report on the above damage was suffering from the suspicion of violation of the Medical Service Act; ③ there was no special reason or motive for the victim to be aware of the defendant; ④ the defendant made a statement at the investigative agency that he was able to be able to have his her son's son even though her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's charge.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In this case, determination of ex officio on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall be made pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. It is determined that there are special circumstances that the Defendant may not issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the same reason as the lower court stated in the exemption

Therefore, the defendant is exempted from the employment restriction order of the welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to the proviso of Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.