The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three years including fine of five million won, orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs for forty hours, and employment restrictions such as children and juveniles-related institutions) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

Article 59-3 (1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, shall issue an order to operate welfare facilities for persons with disabilities, or to prohibit employment or actual labor in welfare facilities for persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as "order to restrict employment") for a specific period from the date on which the execution of all or part of such punishment or medical treatment and custody is terminated or suspended (hereinafter referred to as "period of restriction on employment") is suspended or the execution of such punishment or medical treatment and custody is suspended by a court for sex crime (referring to a sex crime defined in Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime against children or juveniles defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse). However, if the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or any special circumstance that does not restrict employment exists, the court may not issue an employment restriction order, taking into account the risk of the employment restriction period not exceeding ten years.

Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that “The amended Act of Article 59-3 shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense before this Act enters into force and has not received a final and conclusive judgment.”

Therefore, it is true.