The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the nature of the crime in this case is not somewhat weak in light of the substance of the crime in this case and the degree of indecent act, considering the following, considering the fact that the defendant denies the crime by consistently making a vindication that cannot be understood by the court below, and the victim wanting to punish the defendant as a serious punishment due to the failure to recover damage, the punishment of the court below (two months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of suspended execution, and one year of attendance order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine the determination of the grounds for appeal, and the above circumstances alleged by the prosecutor are deemed to have been sufficiently considered in the lower court’s determination of the punishment, and this is, considering the various reasons for sentencing revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant has no specific history of punishment except for a minor punishment once as a fine, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible and so it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In this case, ex officio determination of an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) should be made by examining whether an employment restriction order is imposed on welfare facilities for persons with disabilities and the period of employment restriction pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11,

In light of such special circumstances as the court below exempted the defendant from an employment restriction order on child and juvenile-related institutions, etc., it is determined that there is no special reason to issue an employment restriction order on welfare facilities for disabled persons for the same reason. Thus, the defendant is exempted from an employment restriction order on welfare facilities for disabled persons pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-

( long as the defendant is exempted from the employment restriction order on the welfare facilities for the disabled, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on this ground). 4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.