The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 120 hours of orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of employment restrictions, such as children and juveniles-related institutions) is too unreasonable.

Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) uniformly limits the employment of welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for ten years from the date when the execution of all or part of the punishment or medical treatment and custody is terminated or suspended or exempted.

However, Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019), which was enforced on June 12, 2019, provides that a court may choose a period of restriction on employment (However, the period shall not exceed 10 years pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article; hereinafter the same shall apply) and, at the same time, order a person with disabilities to restrict the employment, etc. to a person with disabilities when it decides that the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or that there are other special circumstances for not restricting employment.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

As such, as Article 59-3 of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case after the court below was declared and enforced, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed sexual crimes was sentenced to an employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction under the above Act.

However, an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that declares simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and it is inevitable to reverse all of the judgment below without any error in the judgment below. Therefore, the judgment below cannot be upheld.