The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. There is a risk of repeating a crime by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the ground that the attachment order was unlawful

It is difficult to see that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for a period of three years.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The main text of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), which was effective July 17, 2018, provides that where a court pronounces a punishment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense"), any person who has been sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5) shall be sentenced by a judgment to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to prohibit a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. from operating such institution for a certain period from the date (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final) on which the execution of all or part of such punishment is terminated or suspended or exempted, or to order it from providing employment or actual labor to such institution, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "order to restrict employment") simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case.

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same law provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

Therefore, it is necessary to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the above Act.

The former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352) has no provision on the employment restriction order. Thus, the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.

The employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that declares simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case, so it is against the defendant.