The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the above fine is not paid.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the Defendant is unable to freely leave his body, such as being wheeler life and bending hossa, due to a traffic accident that leads to a paralysis and a defect in the hosa. Therefore, the Defendant cannot engage in the same conduct as described in the facts charged, such as inducing the victim with the intent to conjecte the two arms with the intent to do so.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's argument of reasons for appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) 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 each defendant of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the risk of recidivism, etc., upon sentencing the punishment for each sex offense, the court shall set a differential period of employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles against the judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined below.

B. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.