The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crimes of No. 1 through No. 7 of [Attachment 1] No. 2 of the judgment of the defendant, and 3.

1. According to Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, and enforced as of June 12, 2019, when a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall impose an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or not to provide employment or actual labor to persons with welfare facilities for persons with disabilities during the period of employment restriction (hereinafter referred to as “order for employment restriction” under the following) concurrently with the judgment of a sex offense case; however, the employment restriction order may not be issued in cases where special circumstances that prevent the employment restriction exist, and the employment restriction period shall not exceed ten years.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 11, 2018) provides that these amendments shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final and conclusive judgments.

Therefore, when a sentence is imposed for the sex offense of this case, it is necessary to examine and judge whether or not to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled in accordance with the above provision, and the restriction period, etc., and in this regard, the part of the judgment below which does not include it is impossible to maintain as

On the other hand, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the case against which the defendant's case is reversed shall not be reversed, and the part of the judgment of the court below that should be examined together and sentenced simultaneously

[See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6980, 2015Mo2524, Sept. 10, 2015] Provided, That the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the assertion of improper attachment order issued by the defendant and the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) is subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, the same is examined.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the defendant's case)

A. The alleged crime;