The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court shall be sentenced to one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have raped the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and among the crimes of No. 2 of the judgment.

항 부분과 같이 피해자의 가슴을 만진 사실이 없으며, 나머지 부분에 대하여는 피해자의 몸을 스치거나 허리 부위를 툭 치는 정도의 신체 접촉이 있었을 뿐 추행의 고의가 없었다.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

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

2. Determination

A. The main sentence of Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that when the court imposes a punishment for a sex crime (referring 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 children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; hereinafter the same shall apply), an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prohibit them from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for a certain period (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order on welfare

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act ( December 11, 2018) provides that "the amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not been finally and conclusively determined."

This case constitutes sexual crimes and simultaneously with the judgment of this case, and simultaneously with the judgment of this case, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the alleged mistake of facts in the lower court, and the lower court did so in detail.