The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four years, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types);

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, 120 hours of completion of child abuse treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (the defendant A: three years of imprisonment, 120 hours of completion of the child abuse treatment program, 1 year and six months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of taking the child abuse treatment course) by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) was uniformly restricted the employment of a child-related institution for 10 years for a person who was sentenced to punishment due to a child abuse-related crime.

However, according to Article 29-3(1) and (2) of the Child Welfare Site Act (amended by Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018; effective June 12, 2019; hereinafter “Child Welfare Site Act”) which was amended, pursuant to Article 29-3(1) and (2) of the Act, where a sentence is imposed for a child abuse-related crime, the court shall issue an order not to operate a child-related institution or to provide employment or actual labor to a child-related institution for a certain period not exceeding 10 years (hereinafter “employment restriction order”) simultaneously with the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case: Provided, That where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low, or where it is deemed that there are any special circumstances that need not restrict employment, it may

Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that "The amended provisions of Article 29-3 shall also apply to a person who has committed a crime related to child abuse and has not received a final and conclusive judgment prior to the enforcement of this Act" and the amended Act shall also apply to this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not issue an employment restriction order or decide whether to exempt the Defendants from the employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act can no longer be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below has a ground for reversal ex officio, and the defendant A and the prosecutor.