The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the sentencing (in cases of original trial, six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of taking the sexual assault treatment course, confiscation, and three years of restriction on employment);

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019; Act No. 1550, Jun. 12, 2019; hereinafter “Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) provides that, when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding ten years; however, the same shall apply to a sex offense case where the risk of recidivism is significantly low

However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that Article 59-3 of the amended Act provides that the above amended Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses and have not received final and conclusive judgments prior to its enforcement, so the above amended Act shall also apply. In this regard, the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

B. A summary of the facts charged (i) misunderstanding the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence or misunderstanding of facts (i.e., an indictment Nos. 1 through 21) (i.e., an indictment Nos. 1 through 21). The Defendant taken the body part of a woman in the upper half of the 20th century, where the breast-ray was exposed to a mobile phone camera in the front of the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, U.S. on June 9, 2018; and (ii) taken the body of another person who may cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame by using a camera no. 1 or 21 on the same day until 18:04 on the same day as indicated in attached Table No. 1 or No. 21 of the List of Crimes; (iii) the main evidence presented by the prosecutor presented by the prosecutor, which was the cellular phone owned by the police officer, (iv) the mobile phone that was seized by the Defendant.