The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 1.5 million won of a fine and 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture) that the court below rendered is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had an intent to satisfy his sexual desire, and the circumstance in which the Defendant lives economically difficult.

However, considering all of the sentencing circumstances as alleged by the Defendant, considering the fact that the lower court significantly reduced a fine of KRW 3 million to a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and the fact that there was no change in circumstances after the sentence of the lower judgment, and the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities ( December 11, 2018), Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, effective as of June 12, 2019, applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the said Act enters into force and has not been finally determined.

Since the crime of indecent act by compulsion falls under a sex offense to which the above provision applies, this court should decide whether to issue an employment restriction order or to exempt the defendant from the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled.

In light of the Defendant’s age, criminal record, family environment, social relationship, details and motive of the crime, method of crime, and consequence, the degree and expected side effect of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, prevention and effect of the sex crime that can be achieved therefrom, victim protection effect, possibility of recidivism, etc., the lower court’s judgment that did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant for welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act should be maintained as it is, in its entirety.

4. Conclusion.