The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not commit an indecent act at a place of public smuggling on February 21, 2017, as described in this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts, which was sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (2.00,000 won of fine) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

A. According to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018), the amended provisions of Article 56 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018) applies to those who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the said Act and have not been finally determined, it is also applicable to those who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the said Act. Therefore, whether the Defendant, who committed a sex offense prior to the enforcement of the said Act, was subject to an order of restriction

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018), the amended provision of Article 59-3 (Restriction on Employment of Sex Offenders, etc.) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was enforced on June 12, 2019, applies to those who have committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act, and have not been finally determined. Therefore, whether the Defendant who committed a sex offense prior to the enforcement of the Act should also examine whether to issue an employment restriction

C. However, the above employment restriction order is a sex crime.