The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Improper sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below ex officio held that the crime of violating the Act on the Protection, etc. of Children from Sexual Abuse (a quasi-decent act) constitutes “child abuse crime under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse” under Article 3 subparag. 7-2 (a) of the Child Uniforms Act, and ordered the Defendant to place employment restrictions on “child-related institutions” under Article 29-3(1) of the Child Uniforms Act.

In order for the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse to constitute the above child abuse crime, the defendant must be deemed to fall under the “guardian” under Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Child Reinstatement Act (Article 2 subparag. 4(f), (m), and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse). However, Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Child Reinstatement Act provides that “guardian” means a person in parental authority, guardian, or person who protects, rears, or educates a child, or is under such duty, or a person who actually protects and supervises a child due to his/her duties, employment, etc. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (i) the defendant resided in the defendant’s house for about one week on the ground that the victim was born and knows with the child of the defendant; (ii) the fact that there is no legal basis for the protection, supervision, and supervision of the defendant and the victim; and (iii) the legislative purpose of the Act on the Protection and Support of Children from Missing; and (iv) the discovery and support of the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court: