The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant indecent act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018) places restrictions on employment in institutions related to children and juveniles on a uniform basis for persons who have been finally determined after having been sentenced to a punishment for a sex offense against children or juveniles or a sex offense against adults (hereinafter referred to as “sex offense”) upon completion of all or part of the execution of the punishment or treatment and custody, or suspension or exemption of the execution, but Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “Amended Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse”) that took effect on July 17, 2018, where the court declares an employment restriction order for a sex offense or imposed an employment restriction order for a limited period of time, other than the previous provision, in cases where the court declares the employment restriction order for a sex offense.

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Juvenile Protection Act applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before this Act enters into force and has not received a final judgment.

“......”

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of indecent act of this case.

Accordingly, as Article 56 of the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act was enforced after the decision of the court below and applied to this case, whether to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant and the period of employment restriction.