The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of five million won, etc.) against the Defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data in the trial, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the ground of unfair sentencing are deemed to have been reflected in the grounds for sentencing by the lower court. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed unfair because the lower court’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime were committed, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, including the following circumstances.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019, on an ex officio decision on an order to restrict employment under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, is an order to prevent the operation of welfare facilities for persons with disabilities or the provision of actual labor for persons with disabilities (hereinafter “order to restrict employment”) from being employed in welfare facilities for a specific period from the date on which the execution of all or part of the punishment or medical treatment and custody is terminated or suspended (hereinafter “order to restrict employment”) is suspended when a court declares a sex crime (referring to a sexual crime under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime against children or juveniles under Article 2(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse).