The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018) uniformly limits a person determined to be sentenced to a punishment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sex offense”) on employment in a child or juvenile-related institution for 10 years from the date on which the execution of the punishment or treatment was completed, or suspended or exempted.

However, Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act”) which was amended by Act No. 15352 and enforced July 17, 2018 requires a court to issue an order to restrict employment, etc. to a child or juvenile-related institution at the same time with a judgment on a sex offense case (excluding a person subject to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)), where the court issues a punishment or treatment, or a custody for a sex offense case (excluding a person subject to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)), and at the same time issues an order to restrict employment, etc. with a period of restriction on employment (Provided, That the period shall not exceed ten years pursuant to Article 11(2)). There are special circumstances that the risk of recidivism

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same law provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

As such, Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse applies to this case after the decision of the court below was made, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed sexual crimes committed prior to the enforcement of the Act and the period of restriction on employment.

However, there is a problem.