The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the date and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no memory with C, and there is no other act such as those indicated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Progress of the instant lawsuit

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and ordered the Defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours, bear litigation costs, etc. while sentencing a fine of KRW 4 million, and appealed only on the ground of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

B. Before remanding, the first instance judgment was reversed ex officio on the ground that the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities related to the addition of the employment restriction order to welfare facilities for the disabled was amended, and the Defendant ordered the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours, the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, and the burden of litigation costs for one year for welfare facilities for the disabled, and the Defendant filed an appeal on the ground that “the judgment prior to returning was erroneous in matters of law by misapprehending the legal principles on probative value of evidence and violating Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the prohibition of disadvantageous change.”

C. The Supreme Court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the probative value of evidence among the grounds of appeal, but the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Revised Act”) amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018.

Even if the judgment of the court below imposed an employment restriction order, the defendant is not subject to the employment restriction on child and juvenile-related institutions, unless the judgment of the court below is sentenced, and the judgment of the court prior to the remand concurrently issued the employment restriction order to the defendant for one year against child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. in accordance with the revised Juvenile Protection Act.