The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, from the date this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of attending courses, 2 years of restricted employment order) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody by sex offense, it shall, by judgment, impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or to prevent them from providing employment or actual labor at welfare facilities (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is imposed, the date on which the sentence becomes final, the date on which the sentence becomes final), or from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is suspended or exempted; however, the same shall not apply to cases where

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense and has not been finally determined prior to the enforcement of the Act.

Since the crime of using and photographing the camera, etc. of this case constitutes a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies, this court must decide whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to the defendant.

On the other hand, this court should issue an employment restriction order to the defendant at the same time with the judgment of this case. Thus, even if there is no illegality in the remaining part of the judgment below, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above.