The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In this case’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of the appellate trial’s judgment, only the Defendant appealed as an unreasonable sentencing. The lower court reversed the part of the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in order to deliberate and decide on the order of employment restriction, by applying Article 59-3 of the amended Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “Revised Act”), which was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018, and enforced June 12, 2019, and issued an order of employment restriction for 10 years at the same time to the welfare facilities for the disabled.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ex officio adjudication under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Claim against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change

A. When applying the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the main text should not be considered individually and formally, and the overall and substantial consideration should be made.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7198, Dec. 12, 2013). B.

If the judgment of the first instance court becomes final and conclusive without filing an appeal, according to the special provisions of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Addenda to the amended Act, the employment of the defendant with respect to the welfare facilities for the disabled for five years is restricted.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to July 25, 2019, which was after the enforcement of the amended Act, and sentenced the Defendant who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the amended Act, for a period of six years more than that of the first instance court which sentenced the Defendant to seven years of imprisonment, etc., and issued an employment restriction order for 10 years at welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Act and Article 59-3(1) main text of the amended Act.

C. Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing, the lower court sentenced the first instance judgment.