The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be seven years.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the case of the defendant, and regarding the case of the case of the case of the attachment order, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., the part of the case of the attachment order claim as the defendant appealed only to that effect, and thus, the court below excluded the part of the case from the scope of the judgment of this court.

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) did not stipulate the employment restriction order, and the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.