The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is improper because the punishment imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court, ex officio, applied the main text of Article 13(1) and Article 13(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse to order the Defendant to complete sexual assault treatment programs.

However, Article 13 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 10260, Apr. 15, 2010) provides for the enforcement of an order to attend a lecture only on the premise that a suspended sentence is imposed on a person who commits a sex offense against a child or juvenile, and the compulsory imposition of an order to attend a lecture or a order to attend a sexual assault treatment program is required in all cases where a conviction is pronounced on a person who commits a sex offense against a child or juvenile, and the first introduction of an order to attend a lecture or order to attend a sexual assault treatment program under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 10260, Apr. 15, 2010). Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda of the said Act provide that the first provision on the enforcement date shall apply from the person who committed a sex offense against a child or juvenile for the first time after

In this case, among sex offenses against children or juveniles committed by the Defendant on or before April 15, 2010, a crime committed by the Defendant is evident that the date of the crime is prior to the implementation of an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program under the above amended Act, and if the date of the crime is an unregistered crime on or after April 15, 2010, it cannot be readily concluded that the date of crime was after April 15, 2010, and thus, the Defendant is not entitled to apply the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program under

Therefore, although the above revised Act does not apply to the defendant, the court below erred in ordering the defendant to complete a sexual assault treatment program while sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and such illegality affected the judgment.