The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) of the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal in cases where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the circumstances and result of the instant crime, including the following: (a) there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court as the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial; (b) the Defendant recognized and is in depth against the Defendant; and (c) the primary offender was the first offender; and (d) the circumstances and result of the instant crime, including the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and family relationship, the lower court’s sentence is too unfeasible and is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion

B. Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; effective from Jun. 12, 2019) amended to ex officio determination (exemption from employment restriction) provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or from providing employment or actual labor to persons with disabilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years; however, such order may not be issued in cases where the risk of re-offending is considerably low or where special circumstances that prevent them from restricting employment exist.

However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above Amendment provides that Article 59-3 of the above Amendment provides that a person who has committed a sex offense and has not received a final and conclusive judgment prior to its enforcement shall also be subject to the above Amendment Act, so this case shall also be subject to the above Amendment Act. Thus, this court shall issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant