The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment for a term of eight months suspension, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order, and forty hours of order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture) is deemed unreasonable as the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by taking into account various circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing, as stated in its reasoning, and there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

The sentencing of the court below is not unfair.

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019, Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities also applies to persons who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment, the court shall examine and determine whether to issue an employment restriction order to persons with disabilities to the Defendant and the period of employment restriction.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, the risk of recidivism, family environment, social relationship, the details and motive of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime; (b) the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage caused by the employment restriction order; (c) the prevention and effect of the sex offense that may be achieved by such order; and (d) the effect of the protection of victims, etc., the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled cannot be issued pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the above Act.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.