The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

The defendant's 40-hour child abuse.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) by the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The main text of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter “Amended Child Welfare Act”) which was amended on June 12, 2019; and enforced on June 12, 2019 (hereinafter “the Child Welfare Act”) provides that where a court declares a punishment for a child abuse-related crime, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits a child-related institution from operating or providing employment or actual labor to a child-related institution for a certain period not exceeding 10 years, but shall not issue an employment restriction order in cases where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low, or where it is deemed that there are special circumstances that need not restrict employment.

In addition, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 29-3 above shall also apply to a person who committed a crime related to child abuse before the enforcement of this Act and who has not received a final and conclusive judgment.

As such, Article 29-3 of the amended Child Welfare Act applies to this case after the judgment of the court below was issued, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the defendant who committed a child abuse before the enforcement of the above Act is sentenced to the employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction.

However, the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that is sentenced simultaneously with the conviction of a child abuse crime case, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed in whole, even if there is no error in the conviction part of the judgment below.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Re-use.