The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by three years and six months.

80 hours per the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault or threaten the victim, and did not know that the victim was a minor.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the crime resulting from rape against the child or juvenile of this case based on the statements made by the victim with no credibility is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three and a half years) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The main text of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), which was effective July 17, 2018, provides that where a court pronounces a punishment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense"), any person who has been sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5) shall be sentenced by a judgment to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to prohibit a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. from operating such institution for a certain period from the date (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final) on which the execution of all or part of such punishment is terminated or suspended or exempted, or to order it from providing employment or actual labor to such institution, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "order to restrict employment") simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case.

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same law provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

Therefore, it is necessary to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the above Act.

The former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352) has no provision on the employment restriction order. Thus, the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.

order of employment restriction is a sex crime.