1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months;

3.Provided, That this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. After the instant crime was committed, the victim was issued a medical certificate of injury due to the diagnosis and string on the left side, the left side buckbucks, each hand, the left side blue part, and the blue part of the blue part, and the medical certificate of injury was used by prescribing the truth control, salting agents, etc.

The victim suffered the injury as above due to the crime of forced indecent act in this case.

In particular, the victim's injury to the victim's hand was also caused by the defect that the victim tried to report to the police at the time of the occurrence of the case, and thus, it can be viewed as the injury caused by the crime of coercion of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal on the ex officio judgment.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the risk of recidivism, etc., upon sentencing the punishment for each sex offense, the court has set a differential period of restriction on employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

However, the prosecutor's misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles still have meaning, and this will be examined below.

B. The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is as follows.