The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by one year and six months of imprisonment.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the time of the instant crime is specified as around 20:10 on February 13, 2017; (b) however, the time when the victim sent the account number to the Defendant by text messages, which is over two minutes from 20:08, and it is difficult to understand that the crime of rape was committed at that time.

Nevertheless, the court below conducted a hearing without requiring the prosecutor to amend the bill of amendment on the time of the crime, thereby hindering the exercise of the defendant's right to defense.

Around the time when a mistake of facts was written in the facts charged, the Defendant only divided the sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim and did not rape the victim.

The victim's statement that rape had been rape is not consistent with the statements and contradictory to external circumstances in itself, and there are circumstances to suspect that the victim's statement was false for reasons of economic reasons, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the victim guilty of the facts charged by reliance on the victim’s statement.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

According to Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), which was amended on December 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019 (Act No. 15904), where a person is sentenced to a sexual crime under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex offense against a child or juvenile under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, an employment restriction order may be issued within the extent not exceeding 10 years against welfare facilities; however, an employment restriction order may not be issued in cases where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or where there are special circumstances that prevent employment from

The relevant provision of the Act prior to the amendment does not issue a separate employment restriction order.