The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On June 12, 2019, prior to the enforcement date of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “Revised Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to ten months of imprisonment for violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”), such as a violation of the Child Welfare Act (hereinafter “Child’s Act”), a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”).

If the judgment of the first instance becomes final and conclusive without filing an appeal, according to the special provision of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act, the employment of the defendant with respect to the welfare facilities for the disabled for three years is restricted.

However, after the enforcement date of the amended Act in this case, the court below sentenced the defendant who committed a sex offense against a child prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act, based on the judgment of guilty of the violation of the Child Welfare Act (voluntary coercion, sexual harassment, etc. against a child) and the violation of the Juvenile Sex Protection Act (obscenity possession), etc., and sentenced the defendant to the employment restriction order for three years at welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Act and Article 59-3 (1) of the amended Act.

Therefore, while the judgment of the court of first instance is maintained as it is, the judgment of the court below cannot be considered as a more unfavorable judgment against the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change.

2. The remaining argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of incomplete deliberation and omission of judgment in determining the basic facts of sentencing constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

A more minor punishment is imposed on the defendant.