The judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of third instance are all parts of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court against the Defendant (i.e., the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of three years; (ii) for a short of two years and six months; and (iii) for a long term of four months; (iv) for a short term of six months; (iv) for a short term of four months; and (v) for a short term of four months; and (v) for a short term of two months; and (v) for a short term of one month) is too unreasonable

B. The above sentencing of the first and second original judgment on the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are examined ex officio prior to the determination.

This Court decided to consolidate the appeal cases of each judgment of the court below against the defendant, and each of the above judgment of the court below against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, should be punished with a single sentence within the term or amount of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

B. In addition, Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of institutions, etc. related to children and juveniles for the ten-year period for a sex offense against one child, juvenile, or adult, was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; and Article 56(1) and (2) of the same Act provides that when a court issues a punishment for an individual sex offense case, it shall determine the period of restriction on employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant in consideration of the severity of the offense, risk of recidivism, etc., and Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that Article 56 of the same Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, on which the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act also applies to this case, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is no longer maintained.

3. Conclusion.