The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (2 million won of fine, 40 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, and 1 year of employment restriction orders) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “Revised Welfare of Disabled Persons Act”) which was amended on June 12, 2019 by Act No. 15904, prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio determination of grounds for appeal shall be sentenced simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense to prevent the operation of welfare facilities for disabled persons or the employment or the provision of actual labor to welfare facilities for disabled persons from being employed for a certain period not exceeding 10 years; however, the employment restriction order may not be issued in cases where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or where the court determines that there are special circumstances that the employment restriction is not limited

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 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 59-3 of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case after the decision of the court below was made and applied, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed sexual crimes was sentenced to employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction.

However, since an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that is imposed simultaneously with a judgment of a sex offense case, if an employment restriction order is imposed on the defendant, it shall be reversed without any error in the judgment below, and in this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal is without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.