The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles merely caused a strong light such as a strong light to her straw, but did not have any intention to commit an indecent act.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 7 million, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours, the order of employment restriction 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and enforced as of June 12, 2019, Article 59-3(1) of the aforementioned Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act and has not been finally and conclusively determined, this court should examine and determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order against welfare facilities for disabled persons and the period of employment restriction.

The above employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that declares simultaneously with the conviction of a sex offense case, and it is inevitable to reverse all of the judgment below even if it did not err in the conviction part. Thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained.

The judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio reversal, but the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s indecent act was committed by the victim as her mar, and that there was an intentional act on the part of the Defendant at that time, on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and that there was an intentional act on the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court compared with the evidence examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion

4. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and the decision of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.