1. The part of the judgment below regarding the defendant's case shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years;

3. The defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part concerning the defendant’s case and the part concerning the request for probation order as to the part concerning the request for probation order. Since only the defendant appealed, there is no benefit of appeal as to the part concerning the request for

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the reasons for appeal (eight years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which uniformly regulates employment restrictions on persons with disabilities who were sentenced to punishment for sex offenses against children, juveniles, or adults, was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018, and Article 59-1 and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which stipulates that the period of employment restrictions on welfare facilities for persons with disabilities shall be differentiated for each defendant of each case within the 10-year period, considering the seriousness of each offense and the risk of recidivism, etc. The amended provisions of Article 2 of the Addenda of the above amended Act stipulate that Article 59-3 of the same Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before June 12, 2019 and who have not been sentenced to final and conclusive judgment, and therefore, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case. In this regard, the part of the defendant's case among the judgment below was no longer maintained.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is again reversed after pleading, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above.