The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be four years of imprisonment.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant committed an indecent act committed against the victim’s her mbbuck, bucks, chests, or the Defendant’s sexual organ by exposing her mbuck, or by taking the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s muck, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim’s muck, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the grounds that the Defendant convicted the victim of all charges on this part of the charges on the grounds of the victim’s police statement without credibility.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) uniformly prescribes that a person who was finally and conclusively sentenced to punishment or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime should not operate a child-related institution or provide employment or actual labor to a child-related institution, and uniformly sets the period during which the operation, employment or actual labor is not possible (hereinafter “employment restriction period”).

However, Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018; enacted as of June 12, 2019; hereinafter referred to as “Child Welfare Act”) provides that where a court declares a sentence or a medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall issue an order to operate a child-related institution during the employment restriction period, or to prevent the employment or actual labor to a child-related institution (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”) at the same time as the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case: Provided, That where the risk of recidivism is considerably low or where it is deemed that there are special circumstances that prevent employment from being restricted, the employment restriction order may not be imposed, and the employment restriction period under paragraph (2) of the same Article