The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, and 3 years of employment restrictions, such as institutions related to children and juveniles) 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) uniformly limits the employment of persons with disabilities at welfare facilities for ten years from the date on which the execution of a sentence or medical treatment and custody was completed, in whole or in part, or suspended or exempted.

However, Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019), which was enforced on June 12, 2019, provides that a court may choose a period of restriction on employment (However, the period shall not exceed 10 years pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article; hereinafter the same shall apply) and, at the same time, order a person with disabilities to restrict the employment, etc. to a person with disabilities when it decides that the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or that there are other special circumstances for not restricting employment.

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

As such, Article 59-3 of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to this case, the defendant who committed sexual crimes prior to the enforcement of the above Act shall be tried and tried by examining whether to issue an employment restriction order and the period of employment restriction under the above Act.

However, an employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that declared simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety, even if there is no error in the judgment of the court below.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is correct.