The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The gist of reasons for appeal (the sentencing is unfair and the exemption from order to disclose personal information is unfair);

A. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, community service hours, and 40 hours in the course of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the defendant from the disclosure order of personal information, even though it is necessary to disclose and notify the personal information when considering the circumstances leading up to the unfair crime of exemption from the disclosure order, possibility of recidivism, etc.

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

Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Act”) places restrictions on employment with regard to juvenile-related institutions, etc. for ten years from the date on which the execution of all or part of a punishment or a treatment and custody for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter “sex offense”) is completed uniformly or suspended or exempted, but Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “former Act”) limits employment with regard to a person subject to employment restrictions for a period not exceeding 10 years from the date on which the execution of such punishment or treatment is suspended or exempted. However, a person subject to employment restrictions at the same time, contrary to the previous provision of Article 56(1) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (excluding any person subject to employment restrictions at the same time, who was sentenced by a court under the same provision of Article 56(1) of the same Act.

In determining whether to issue an employment restriction order, it is stipulated that it will not issue an employment restriction order.

On the other hand, the revised Juvenile Sex Protection Act.