The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

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., upon sentencing the punishment for each sex offense, the court has set a differential period of restriction on employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 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.

However, since the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still meaningful, it will be examined below.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder, the Defendant is deemed to have served a large amount of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case to the extent that the Defendant was aware that he was a taxi at the time of committing each of the crimes in this case, in light of the fact that the Defendant was aware that he had served the police patrol at the time of the crimes in this case, but was up to the third floor of the instant officetel building with A-containr and berarara, and that the Defendant was not under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was under drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case.