The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. The main text of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act, which was amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, provides that when the court declares a punishment for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall order a child-related institution to operate the child-related institution for a certain period or not to provide employment or actual labor to the child-related institution (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”) simultaneously with the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case, and the proviso of the above provision provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or where the employment is not restricted.

In addition, according to Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act, the amended provisions of Article 29-3 apply to a person who committed a child abuse-related crime before this Act enters into force and has not received a final judgment.

Since each of the crimes committed by Defendant constitutes a child abuse-related crime under the Child Welfare Act, the above revised Act applies to this case.

However, the lower court erred by omitting the issuance of an employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act and the period of employment restriction on the Defendant who committed a crime related to child abuse prior to the enforcement of the above revised Act, even though it examined and determined whether the employment restriction order was issued under the Child Welfare Act, and the order of employment restriction was an incidental disposition that simultaneously sentenced to the conviction of a crime related to child abuse, and

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below on the ground of ex officio reversal prior to the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining each of the grounds for unfair sentencing