The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

The grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental reasons for appeal filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal.

The Defendant, as stated in the instant facts charged, did not at all commit an indecent act by force against the victim who is a friendship with the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, by taking the statements of the victim without credibility and his father-child as its main

Even if the sentencing is found to be guilty, the sentence imposed by the court below (the completion of the sexual assault treatment program for three years and forty hours) is too unreasonable.

Ex officio (order to restrict employment) We examine the reasons for appeal ex officio.

Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for a sex offense against children, juveniles, or adults, shall be amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; and Article 56(1) and (2) of the same Act provides that Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the court shall determine the period of restriction on employment to be differentiated for each accused of each case in consideration of the severity of the offense, the risk of recidivism, etc., and Article 56 of the same Act provides that Article 56 of the same Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date of the enforcement of the above Act and who have not been finally determined.

Article 56 of the amended Act applies to the crime of forced sexual conduct by blood in this case by falling under “sex crimes against children and juveniles.”

Therefore, at the same time with the judgment of this case, the judgment of the court below was unable to maintain the order of restriction on employment of the defendant.

However, inasmuch as the above reasons for reversal exist, the defendant's person.