The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence (the suspended sentence of a fine of three million won, confiscation) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the instant argument and the grounds for sentencing indicated in the record of the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing, the lower court appears to have made an adequate decision by fully considering all the circumstances, including the multiple grounds for sentencing asserted by the prosecutor, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is modified

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Ex officio determination as to whether to issue an employment restriction order, and Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, as well as Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Disabled Persons, which was enforced as of June 12, 2019, provides that where a court declares a sex crime (referring to a sex crime defined in Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime subject to children and juveniles defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse), it shall, by judgment, issue an order to operate welfare facilities for disabled persons, or to provide actual labor to welfare facilities for disabled persons (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”), with an order to prohibit employment or actual labor (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”), with employment restriction order being imposed for a period not exceeding 10 years.