The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years and six months of imprisonment.

except that this judgment.

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

The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), which was effective July 17, 2018, provides that where a court issues a sentence of a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") for medical treatment or custody (excluding a person who has been sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)) by judgment, the court shall issue an order to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. prescribed by the above Act, or to prohibit the operation of a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to provide employment or actual labor to a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., for a certain period from the date the execution of the sentence is terminated or suspended (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final).

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the same Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not been finally determined.

Therefore, it is necessary to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the above Act.

The former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352) has no provision on the employment restriction order. Therefore, the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.

Since the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that issues an employment restriction order simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case, in the event that an employment restriction order is imposed on the defendant, it shall be reversed without any error in the judgment below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

2. Thus, the judgment of the court below is unfair and unfair since there is a ground for reversal as seen above.