The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below, the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Unfair disclosure and notification order (the defendant) issued by the court below against the defendant is unfair.

2. Determination

A. As the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse was amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012, Article 21(2) of the same Act provides that when a court declares a guilty verdict on a person who commits a sex offense against a child or juvenile, the court shall concurrently issue an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for a period not exceeding 500 hours (except in special circumstances where an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a program is not possible). According to Article 4 of the Addenda of the same Act, the amended provision of Article 21 of the same Act applies to a person who first is convicted of a conviction, suspended sentence, or suspended execution after the enforcement of the same Act (as of June 19, 2013).

The facts charged of this case are that the defendant committed the crime of quasi-rapeing against female juveniles under 15 years of age who are sex offenses against children or juveniles. Since the defendant is found guilty after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the order to attend a course or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program should be issued concurrently unless there are special circumstances where the defendant cannot impose an order to attend a course or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this regard.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument of improper disclosure and notification order is still subject to the judgment of this court.