The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which uniformly provided for the restriction on employment of persons with disabilities for the ten-year period for children, juveniles, or adults, was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018, and Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that the court shall separately determine the period of restriction on employment within a ten-year period in consideration of the risk of recidivism, etc. (hereinafter “amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”), and Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that “The amended provisions of Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which provide for the restriction on employment of persons with disabilities for the ten-year period, shall also apply to persons who have committed sex crimes before June 12, 2019.”

Therefore, as the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case after the sentence of the lower judgment, the sentence of the Defendant who committed a sex offense subject to adults is imposed, and at the same time, an additional judgment should be made as to whether to issue an employment restriction order and an employment restriction period for welfare facilities for persons with disabilities, and the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition which simultaneously sentenced to a conviction of a sex offense case and cannot be reversed in its entirety, even if

B. It is reasonable to respect the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court, and all of the reasons for sentencing presented by the lower court.