The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts regarding indecent act by compulsion) was that the Defendant did not keep the victim D’s her her tumm in his/her hands.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence examined by the court below, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the victim D's her mar, as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the court below, has met one time by hand.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and effective June 12, 2019, Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act, and has not been finally and conclusively determined, this court shall examine and determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order on welfare facilities for persons with disabilities and the period of employment restriction.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, the risk of recidivism, family environment, social relationship, the details and motive of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime; (b) the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage caused by the employment restriction order; (c) the prevention and effect of the sex offense that may be achieved by such order; and (d) the effect of the protection of victims, etc., the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled cannot be issued pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the above Act.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.