The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the part of the defendant's case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (three million won of fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below that dismissed a prosecutor's request for probation order even though there is a risk of recidivism of sexual crimes, such as the defendant and the person requesting probation order (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") having committed a sexual crime, etc.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) stipulates that persons who were sentenced to punishment for sexual crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or sexual crimes against children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “sexual crimes”) have uniformly provided for the restriction on employment of persons with disabilities for the ten-year period.

However, 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 from Jun. 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall not issue an employment restriction order to operate welfare facilities for a specific period not exceeding 10 years or provide employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for the disabled, but shall not issue an employment restriction order in the event of a sex offense case.

Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement and has not received a final and conclusive judgment, and the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

Therefore, the defendant did not decide whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.