The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by one year and six months of imprisonment.

except that this judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is unfair because the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

According to Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), which was amended on December 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019 (Act No. 15904), where a person is sentenced to a sexual crime under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex offense against a child or juvenile under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, an employment restriction order may be issued within the extent not exceeding 10 years against welfare facilities; however, an employment restriction order may not be issued in cases where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or where there are special circumstances that prevent employment from

Before the amendment, the relevant provisions of the Act stipulate that employment shall be restricted automatically for 10 years without the issuance of a separate employment restriction order.

In addition, according to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018), the above amended provisions shall also apply to persons who committed sex offenses before the enforcement and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a sex offense as seen earlier and thus, it is necessary to deliberate and decide whether to issue an employment restriction order with a period fixed in accordance with the above amended provisions, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.