The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse”) restricts the employment of a child-related institution, etc., for ten years from the date on which the execution of all or part of a punishment or treatment and custody for a child or juvenile, or a sex offense subject to adults (hereinafter referred to as “sex offense”) is completed, or the execution of such punishment or treatment and custody is postponed or exempted, on a uniform basis, for ten years from the date on which the former Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; however, Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (excluding the amended Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse), which was enacted on July 17, 2018;

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.

“......”

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges of the attempted indecent act in the instant case.

As Article 56 of the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act was enforced after the decision of the court below and applied to this case, the defendant's employment restriction order is issued.