The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The 3th order of the lower judgment is that “the completion of sexual assault treatment programs” is the same.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution, and 40 hours of order to complete a program) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the arguments and records of the instant case, such as the fact that the images that may cause a judgment of the Defendant’s assertion are highly likely to be subject to criticism against the victim’s will, and that there is no agreement with the victim, etc., the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment should be changed.

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities ( December 11, 2018), Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, effective as of June 12, 2019, applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the said Act enters into force and has not been finally determined.

Since the crime of this case constitutes a sex offense to which the above provision applies, this court should determine whether the defendant is sentenced to or exempted from the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled.

In light of the Defendant’s age, criminal record, family environment, social relationship, details and motive of the offense, method of and consequence of the offense, the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, the preventive effect of the sex crime that may be achieved therefrom, the effect of the victim protection, the possibility of recidivism, etc., it is determined that there are special circumstances where the employment restriction should not be imposed on the Defendant pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.