The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of six months or 40 hours imprisonment, order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, or order of employment restriction for five years) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904) (amended by Act No. 15904), effective as of June 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for sex offense, the court shall, by judgment, order the operation of welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or the provision of actual labor to persons with disabilities for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final and conclusive) or the execution thereof is suspended or exempted (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) to be sentenced simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case, and the proviso to Article 59-3(1)

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act and has not been finally determined.

The crime of indecent act by compulsion and public performance constitutes a sex offense to which Article 59-3(1) of the above Act applies, and thus, this court should decide on whether to issue or exempt the Defendant’s employment restriction order.

Considering the method and attitude of the crime appearing in the record, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the circumstances before and after the crime, there is no special circumstance that the defendant would not significantly lower the risk of recidivism or restrict employment.

On the other hand, the court of this case should issue an employment restriction order to the defendant at the same time with the judgment of this case, which is erroneous in the judgment below.