The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

One loss (No. 1) which has been seized shall be confiscated.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's argument of reasons for appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the risk of recidivism, etc., when the court sentenced the punishment for each sex offense, and separately determines the period of restriction on employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

B. In the appellate brief, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim E in March or April of the same year from the end of March 2015 to the beginning of April of the same year. However, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim E on the grounds of appeal. However, at the sixth trial date of the trial of the first instance court, all of the instant crimes were led to the confession of the facts and the withdrawal of the misapprehension of the legal principles, and even after ex officio examination, there was an error of law by rejecting the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the following reasons: “Judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel

subsection (3) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is justified for reversal of authority as above.