The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years and six months of imprisonment.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, the suspension of execution of four years, etc.) is too unreasonable.

According to Article 29-3 of the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 1589) and Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904), where a sentence is imposed on a child abuse-related crime under Article 3 subparag. 7-2 of the Child Welfare Act, where a sentence is imposed on a child-related institution, or a punishment is imposed on a sex offense against a child or juvenile under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, or subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, an employment restriction order may be imposed on a welfare facility for up to ten years, respectively; however, where a risk of recidivism is significantly low, or where it is deemed that there is any special reason for not restricting employment, an employment restriction order may not be issued.

Before each amendment, the relevant provisions of the Act stipulate that employment shall be restricted automatically for 10 years without a separate employment restriction order.

In addition, according to Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018), each of the above amended provisions shall also apply to a person who had committed a child abuse-related crime or sex offense before the enforcement and has not received a final judgment.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case include child abuse-related crimes and sex crimes as seen earlier, and thus, if a sentence is found guilty, it is necessary to deliberate and decide whether to issue an employment restriction order for a fixed period pursuant to the above amended provisions, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

In conclusion, the court below did not decide on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on the ground of ex officio reversal.