The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for six months, suspension of execution for two years, suspension of education for 80 hours, restriction on employment for two years) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody by sex offense, it shall, by judgment, impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prevent them from providing employment or actual labor at welfare facilities (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is imposed, the date on which the sentence becomes final, the date on which the sentence becomes final), or from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is suspended or exempted; however, the same shall not apply to cases where

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense and has not been finally determined prior to the enforcement of the Act.

The offense of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes falls under a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies, and thus, this court should decide whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant.

On the other hand, this court should issue an employment restriction order to the defendant at the same time with the judgment of this case. Thus, even if there is no illegality in the remaining part of the judgment below, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

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