The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act by deceiving the victim's her son as stated in the judgment of the court below.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the judgment.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of a case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime, the risk of recidivism, etc., while sentencing punishment for an individual sex offense case by the court, and Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall also apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and who have not been finally binding.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, and the following is examined.

3. The Defendant and the defense counsel at the original instance asserted the same purport, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant and the defense counsel at the original instance stated the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

4...