The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (a three years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the requester of the protective observation order (unfair sentencing).

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of the lower court is too unfilled and unfair, and thus, the Defendant should be sentenced to a five-year imprisonment.

2. Determination

A. We examine the part of the case of the defendant and the claimant for the observation order to be protected (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") and the prosecutor's grounds for appeal on each part of the appeal prior to the judgment.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jul. 17, 2018; hereinafter referred to as “Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse”) which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for ten years for sex offenses against children, juveniles, or adults; and where the court issues a sentence of punishment or treatment and custody for such sex offenses, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order to prevent the operation of institutions, etc. related to children and juveniles, or the provision of employment or actual labor to institutions, etc. related to children and juveniles for a certain period not exceeding ten years, but there are special circumstances where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low, or otherwise it is prohibited to restrict employment.

In the judgment of the court, the employment restriction order may not be issued.

Therefore, Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 shall also apply to a person who had committed the above sex offense before the enforcement and has not received a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case. In this regard, the part of the case against the defendant among the judgment below shall no longer be maintained.

B. As to the Defendant’s case, the part of the claim for the order to observe the protection.