1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

3.Provided, That this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. The punishment sentenced to the accused (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for three years) of the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal ex officio before determining the grounds of appeal.

The Defendant received a separate sentence of the first and second original judgment and filed an appeal against each of the original judgment. This court decided to consolidate and examine each of the above appellate cases. The above judgment against the Defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence should be pronounced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second original judgment against the Defendant cannot be maintained.

In addition, in the instant case, it is necessary to determine whether to issue an employment restriction order to welfare facilities for the disabled since Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) are applied. Therefore, the first and second judgment of the lower court has grounds for ex officio reversal.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal on the grounds of appeal, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

2. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (referring to the aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment determined by the crime of quasi-rape committed on May 1, 2015, heavier penalty).

3. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

4. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows.