The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

For the accused, children and juveniles-related institutions.

1. The reasoning for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the Defendant’s grounds for appeal for sentencing ex officio.

Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, before being amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018, provides that a person determined to be sentenced to a punishment or treatment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") may not operate a child or juvenile-related institution, nor provide employment or de facto labor for ten years from the date on which the execution of the punishment or treatment or care is completed, or the execution of the treatment or care is suspended or exempted.

However, Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352 and enforced July 17, 2018, provides that in cases where a sentence of punishment or medical care and custody is imposed for sex crimes, an order shall be issued simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to prevent the employment or actual labor of the institution, etc., for a certain period from the date of termination or exemption of the execution of all or part of the punishment or medical care and custody (where a fine is imposed, the date on which the punishment becomes final and conclusive).

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (No. 15352, January 16, 2018) provides that "the amended provisions of Article 56 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex crimes before this Act enters into force and have not been finally determined."

The order of restriction on employment under the above revised provision is an incidental disposition to be sentenced simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and all of the judgment below should be reversed even if there is no error in the remaining conviction part of the judgment below. Thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained

3. Conclusion