The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of seven million won, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for forty hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing; and (b) considering the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the victim again helps the defendant use the defendant in the original judgment and the party trial; and (c) the victim wanted the defendant to use the defendant again in the original judgment and the party trial, the sentence of the court below is too un

B. Ex officio determination as to whether to issue an employment restriction order, Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, is enforced as of June 12, 2019, where a court pronounces a sex crime (referring to a sex crime defined in Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime subject to children and juveniles defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) or a medical treatment and custody for a specific period (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction period”), it shall issue an order to operate welfare facilities for disabled persons, or to provide actual labor to welfare facilities for disabled persons (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”), concurrently with the judgment of a sex offense case, and if it deems that the risk of recidivism is significantly low or any special circumstance exists, it shall not exceed the period of employment restriction order.