The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of misunderstanding the fact, did not memory and did not have an intention to commit an indecent act by force.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018) uniformly restricted a person who was finally determined to be sentenced to a punishment or treatment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") from employment to a child or juvenile-related institution, for ten years from the date on which the execution of the punishment or treatment or care or custody was wholly or partially terminated or suspended.

However, Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act”) which was amended by Act No. 15352 and enforced July 17, 2018, provides that a court shall issue an order to restrict employment, etc. to a child-related institution, etc. for a period of restriction on employment at the same time with a judgment on a sex offense case (excluding any person subject to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)) where the court issues a punishment or treatment, or a custody, due to a sex offense (excluding any person subject to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)) and simultaneously with a judgment on a sex offense case (Provided, That the period shall not exceed ten years pursuant to Article 11(2)), and there are special circumstances in which

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same law provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 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 56 of the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act was enforced after the judgment of the court below and applied to this case, the above Act.