The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not appear as the victim’s chest on the day of the instant case, and even if there were some physical contacts with the victim during the process of entering the victim’s house, there was no intent to commit an indecent act. 2) Of sentencing in the sentencing division, the sentencing of the lower court: fine of KRW 5 million, completion of sexual assault treatment programs, 40 hours, and 2 years of employment restriction.

B. Prosecutor: Sentencing;

2. Determination

A. Determination ex officio (Application of Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities) 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 June 12, 2019, provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years; however, such order may not be issued in cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or where there are special circumstances that prevent the restriction on employment.

However, 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 and has not received final and conclusive judgment prior to its enforcement, and the above amended Act shall also apply to this case, so the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The lower court did not have any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process of the appellate court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

or fact-finding.