The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment for a term of eight months) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) uniformly limits employment to welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for ten years from the date on which the execution of a sentence or medical treatment and custody is completed, suspended, or exempted, in whole or in part, for a sex offense against adults or sex offense against children or juveniles, or for whom the sentence or medical treatment and custody is finalized, but Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “amended Act”) amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and enforced as of June 11, 2019 (hereinafter “former Act”), unlike the previous provision, where the court issues an order for restriction on employment of persons with disabilities to the welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for a fixed period of time and, at the same time, did not provide for special circumstances to determine the risk of re-offending or otherwise restrict employment.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that "The amended Act of Article 59-3 shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment."

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

However, although Article 59-3 of the revised Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case and the judgment of the court below did not determine whether to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant and the period of employment restriction, the judgment of the court below is no longer possible.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and the period of restriction on employment pursuant to Article 59-3(1) of the revised Welfare Act.