The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment for a period of five-month suspension, 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault therapy, 3 years of an employment restriction order) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

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

Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), effective June 12, 2019, provides that where the court declares a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, the court shall make an order (hereinafter referred to as "employment restriction order") to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prohibit them from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for a certain period from the date such punishment or medical treatment and custody is completely or partially terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the punishment becomes final and conclusive). The proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk of recidivism

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that “The Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense and has not been finally and conclusively determined prior to the enforcement of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.”

The crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes falls under a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the same Act applies, and thus, this court should decide whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant pursuant to Article 59-3(1) of the same Act.

Considering the criminal records, methods of crimes, relationship between the defendant and the victim, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant should not be remarkably under the risk of re-offending or be restricted from employment.