The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

In addition, punishment for the person subject to the request for attachment order shall be determined by three years and six months.

1. According to Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and enforced as of June 12, 2019, when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or not to provide employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for persons with disabilities during the period of employment restriction (hereinafter referred to as “order for employment restriction” under the following) concurrently with the judgment of a sex offense case; however, the employment restriction order may not be issued in cases where special circumstances that prevent the employment restriction exist, and the employment restriction period shall not exceed ten years.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 11, 2018) provides that these amendments shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final and conclusive judgments.

Therefore, when a sentence is imposed for the sex offense of this case, it is necessary to examine and judge whether or not to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled in accordance with the above provision, and the restriction period, etc., and in this regard, the part of the judgment below which does not include it is impossible to maintain as

In addition, as long as the judgment of the accused case is reversed illegally, the case of the attachment order order request to be tried together with the judgment and sentenced simultaneously with the judgment should be reversed.

[See Supreme Court Decision 201Do453, 2011 Jeondo12, Apr. 14, 2011, etc.] Provided, That even if a ground for ex officio reversal exists, the argument of mental disability by the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) and the argument of illegality of attachment order is subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, the argument is examined.

2. The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was in a state of mental disability such as sexual intercourse, and the mental retardation at the time of committing the crime.