The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of a fine) against the Defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unhued.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal.

Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 1589) enacted on June 12, 2019 provides that where a court declares a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime, the court shall make an order to operate a child-related institution or not to provide employment or actual labor to a child-related institution for a certain period (hereinafter referred to as "employment restriction period") from the date the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated, suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final, the date on which the fine becomes final) by judgment, or from the date on which the execution of the sentence is suspended or exempted, (hereinafter referred to as "employment restriction period"), and the proviso to Article 29-3(1) provides that such order shall not be imposed concurrently with the judgment of the child abuse-related crime case.

In addition, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that Article 29-3 (1) of the Child Welfare Act applies to a person who committed a crime related to child abuse before the enforcement of the above Act and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment.

Since each of the crimes committed by Defendant constitutes a child abuse-related crime to which Article 29-3(1) of the above Act applies, the above revised law shall also apply to this case.

However, the lower court erred by omitting the issuance of an employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act and the period of employment restriction with respect to the Defendant who committed child abuse before the enforcement of the above amendment, even though it examined and determined whether the employment restriction order was issued under the Child Welfare Act, and the employment restriction order was an incidental disposition that declared simultaneously with the conviction of the crime related to child abuse