The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a sentence of imprisonment for four months, a suspended sentence of one year, a community service for 80 hours, and an order to attend a lecture for treatment of sexual assault for 40 hours) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018) places restrictions on employment in institutions related to children and juveniles on a uniform basis for persons who have been finally determined after having been sentenced to a punishment for a sex offense against children or juveniles or a sex offense against adults (hereinafter referred to as “sex offense”) upon completion of all or part of the execution of the punishment or treatment and custody, or suspension or exemption of the execution, but Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “Amended Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse”) that took effect on July 17, 2018, where the court declares an employment restriction order for a sex offense or imposed an employment restriction order for a limited period of time, other than the previous provision, in cases where the court declares the employment restriction order for a sex offense.

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Juvenile Protection Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before this Act enters into force and has not received a final judgment.

“......”

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges of indecent conduct in the instant case.

Therefore, since Article 56 of the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act is enforced after the decision of the court below and applied to this case, the judgment of the court below should be judged as to whether to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant and the period of employment restriction, so the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.