The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the fine of 500,000 won concurrently, the community service for 120 hours, the lecture for sexual assault treatment of 40 hours, and the lecture for alcohol treatment of 40 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352) effective as of July 17, 2018, where a court declares a punishment or a treatment and custody for a sex offense against a child or youth or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense"), the court shall rule that a person subject to a fine under Article 11(5) shall not be subject to the order to operate a child or youth-related institution, etc., or to not provide employment or actual labor for a certain period from the date on which the execution of all or part of the sentence is terminated or suspended (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final) or the execution of the sentence is suspended or exempted, for a certain period from the date on which the sentence is suspended or exempted (hereinafter referred to as "employment restriction order"), and shall declare it simultaneously with a judgment in the case of a sex offense, except in extenuating circumstances.

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.

Therefore, the defendant who committed a sex offense should be sentenced to or exempted from the employment restriction order.

Since the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352), there was no provision on the employment restriction order, the lower court did not determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order or exempted the employment restriction order.

Since the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that issues an employment restriction order simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case, if all or part of the employment restriction order is illegal, it is in violation of the remaining part of the defendant case.