The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (including a fine of three million won, and completion of a sexual assault treatment program for forty hours) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the Defendant is old and primary offender; and (c) the degree of indecent act in this case’s records and arguments, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation above is groundless.

B. We examine ex officio determination on whether to issue an employment restriction order.

Article 59-3 (1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, shall issue an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prohibit employment or actual labor in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as "order to restrict employment") by judgment when a court issues a sentence of a sex crime (referring to a sexual crime defined in Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime against children or juveniles defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) for a certain period from the date when the execution of all or part of such punishment or medical treatment and custody is terminated or suspended (hereinafter referred to as "period of restriction on employment") or when it issues an order to prohibit employment or actual labor in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities: Provided, That an order to restrict employment may not be issued where it considers that there are any special circumstances that no restriction on employment exists, considering the risk of employment, etc.