The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (along with imprisonment in one year and six months, 40 hours after completion of a sexual assault treatment program, and 3 years after restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (in fact-finding, and on the grounds of unfair sentencing), although it is possible to recognize the credibility of a victim’s statement by mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the minor on the charge of indecent act by compulsion of legal fiction on November 1, 2016 is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The main sentence of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 1589), which was effective June 12, 2019, provides that where the court declares a sentence or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall impose an order to operate a child-related institution or to prohibit a child-related institution from providing employment or actual labor (hereinafter referred to as “order to restrict employment”) for a certain period from the date when the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final, the date on which the sentence becomes final) is suspended or exempted by a judgment, at the same time as the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case, and the proviso to Article 29-3(1) provides that the same shall not apply to cases where the risk

In addition, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 29-3 (1) of the Child Welfare Act applies to a person who committed a crime related to child abuse before the enforcement of the above Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment.

Despite the fact that the instant crime of indecent act by force constitutes a child abuse-related crime, the lower court, at the same time, did not examine and determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order or exempted the Defendant from the employment restriction order.