The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A shall be two years and six months, and imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B.

1. We examine the Defendants’ respective grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment.

The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), which was effective July 17, 2018, provides that where a court issues a sentence of a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") for medical treatment or custody (excluding a person who has been sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)) by judgment, the court shall issue an order to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. prescribed by the above Act, or to prohibit the operation of a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to provide employment or actual labor to a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., for a certain period from the date the execution of the sentence is terminated or suspended (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final).

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the same Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not been finally determined.

Therefore, prior to the enforcement of the above Act, the Defendants who committed sexual crimes should also be sentenced to an employment restriction order.

The former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352) did not provide for an employment restriction order. Therefore, the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendants.

Since the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that issues an employment restriction order simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case, in the event that the judgment of the court below imposes an employment restriction order on the defendants, it shall be reversed without any error in the judgment

Therefore, the judgment of the court below was impossible to maintain as it is (Provided, That since the defendants appealed to the judgment of the court below, the case becomes final and conclusive at the court below.