The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court convicted the instant facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the commencement and attempted suspension of commission in the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment,

2. As to the assertion of violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration

A. When applying the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the main text should not be considered individually and formally, and the overall and substantial consideration should be made.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7198, Dec. 12, 2013). B.

Before June 12, 2019, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment before the enforcement date of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “Revised Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and exempted the Defendant from the employment restriction order for child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse.

If the judgment of the first instance becomes final and conclusive without filing an appeal, according to the special provision of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Addenda to the amended Act, the employment of the defendant with respect to the welfare facilities for the disabled for five years is restricted.

C. The lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in order to deliberate and decide on the order of employment restriction, which is an incidental disposition, by applying Article 59-3 of the amended Act, pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act, in this case where only the Defendant appealed on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles and unreasonable sentencing, and issued an order of employment restriction to institutions related to children and juveniles and welfare facilities for each three years at the same time when sentenced the Defendant to a more minor imprisonment than the first instance court

Examining the sentence of the lower court in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the lower court.