The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for four months, two years of probation, and two years of probation) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by taking into account various circumstances that serve as the conditions for sentencing, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

The sentencing of the court below is not unfair.

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and effective June 12, 2019, Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act, and has not been finally and conclusively determined, this court shall examine and determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order on welfare facilities for persons with disabilities and the period of employment restriction.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, the risk of recidivism, family environment, social relationship, the details and motive of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime; (b) the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage caused by the employment restriction order; (c) the prevention and effect of the sex offense that may be achieved by such order; and (d) the effect of the protection of victims, etc., the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled cannot be issued pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the above Act.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.