The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant thought that the victim was an adult at the time of the instant case, and without knowing that the victim was a child or juvenile with a intellectual disability to the extent that he/she is unable to exercise his/her right to sexual self-determination.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the constituent elements of crime.

Even if the sentencing is found to be guilty, the sentence imposed by the court below (the completion of the sexual assault treatment program for 4 years and 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

Ex officio (order to restrict employment) We examine the reasons for appeal ex officio.

Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for a sex offense against children, juveniles, or adults, shall be amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; and Article 56(1) and (2) of the same Act provides that Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the court shall determine the period of restriction on employment to be differentiated for each accused of each case in consideration of the severity of the offense, the risk of recidivism, etc., and Article 56 of the same Act provides that Article 56 of the same Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date of the enforcement of the above Act and who have not been finally determined.

Article 56 of the amended Act applies to the crime of sex between disabled children and juveniles of this case by falling under “sex offenses against children and juveniles.”

Therefore, at the same time with the judgment of this case, the judgment of the court below was unable to maintain the order of restriction on employment of the defendant.

However, there are reasons for the above ex officio reversal.