The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years of disclosure and notification, 3 years of employment restriction) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) stipulates that persons who were sentenced to punishment for sexual crimes under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or sexual crimes against children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “sexual crimes”) have uniformly provided for the restriction on employment of persons with disabilities for the ten-year period.

However, Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 and enforced from Jun. 12, 2019, provides that where the court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall not issue an employment restriction order to operate welfare facilities for a specific period not exceeding 10 years or provide employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for the disabled, but shall not issue an employment restriction order in the event of a sex offense case.

Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement and has not received a final and conclusive judgment, and the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not issue an employment restriction order or exemption order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities can no longer be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal is without examining the defendant's assertion on unfair sentencing.