The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, he was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

According to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018), Article 56 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15452, etc.), the amendment provision applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the said Act and has not been finally determined. Therefore, whether the Defendant who committed a sex offense prior to the enforcement of the said Act is ordered to

However, an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that is sentenced simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and even if there is no illegality in the remaining part of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. In light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior or the circumstances before and after the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the record of judgment on the claim of mental retardation, it does not seem that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things and make decisions at the time, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.