The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) stipulates that a person who was finally and conclusive after having been sentenced to a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sexual crime”) is unable to operate a welfare facility for the disabled or provide employment or actual labor to the welfare facility for the disabled, and uniformly stipulates that a period during which the person is unable to provide operation, employment or actual labor (hereinafter “period of employment restriction”) shall be ten years uniformly.

However, Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019), which was enforced on June 12, 2019, provides that when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex crimes, it shall, by judgment, issue an order to prohibit the operation of welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or the employment or actual labor in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities during the employment restriction period (hereinafter “order to restrict employment”) in addition to a judgment on a sex offense case: Provided, That in cases where the risk of recidivism is considerably low, or where it is deemed that there are other special circumstances that prohibit the restriction on employment, the employment restriction order may not be issued, and

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities ( December 11, 2018) provides that "The amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received a final judgment."

The instant facts charged constitute a sex offense, and thus, it is necessary to deliberate and decide whether to issue an employment restriction order simultaneously with a judgment setting the employment restriction period pursuant to Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.

Therefore, it is true.