The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. The sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program with forty hours, and the employment restriction order between three years) against the accused on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;

2. According to Article 29-3 of the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 15889), which was amended on December 11, 2018 and enforced from June 12, 2019, ex officio determination, where a sentence is imposed as “child abuse-related crime,” the court should simultaneously issue an employment restriction order to prevent the operation of child-related institutions or the employment or actual labor to the child-related institutions for a certain period not exceeding 10 years, simultaneously with the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case.

In addition, “child abuse-related crimes” under Article 3 subparag. 7-2 of the same Act refers to crimes falling under any of Articles 250 through 255 among crimes of child abuse under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes or murder under Chapter 24 of Part II of the Criminal Act against children.

The remaining crimes except intimidation to the victim K on April 2019, among each of the crimes in the judgment of the defendant committed by the defendant, shall not be a child abuse-related crime since a person, other than a child, is a victim.

Furthermore, the crime of intimidation against the victim K on April 2019 is committed against the child (the victim is 16 years of age at the time of committing the crime), but the defendant does not constitute a crime of child abuse under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes unless the victim is the victim's guardian.

As such, it is not possible to issue an employment restriction order to a child-related agency against a defendant who cannot be seen as committing a child abuse-related crime.

Nevertheless, since the court of first instance sentenced the defendant to an employment restriction order for three years against child-related institutions, the court of first instance, which found such error, cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Conclusion No. 1.