The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by three years and six months.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

1. According to Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and enforced as of June 12, 2019, when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or not to provide employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for persons with disabilities during the period of employment restriction (hereinafter referred to as “order for employment restriction” under the following) concurrently with the judgment of a sex offense case; however, the employment restriction order may not be issued in cases where special circumstances that prevent the employment restriction exist, and the employment restriction period shall not exceed ten years.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 11, 2018) provides that these amendments shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final and conclusive judgments.

Therefore, when a sentence is imposed for the sex offense of this case, it is necessary to examine and judge whether or not to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled in accordance with the above provision, and the restriction period, etc., and the judgment of the court below that does not include it was impossible to maintain.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant and prosecutor's allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Judgment on the defendant's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Although the Defendant asserted that he/she arranged sexual traffic of C and H, who is a child or juvenile, the Defendant does not constitute “business”.

The judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant's act of arranging sexual traffic was a "business" is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The phrase “the act of arranging sexual traffic” means continuing to repeat the act of arranging sexual traffic.