The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the community service work 120 hours, and the attendance of sexual assault therapy 40 hours) is too uneasible.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, before being amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018, provides that a person determined to be sentenced to a punishment or treatment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") may not operate a child or juvenile-related institution, nor provide employment or de facto labor for ten years from the date on which the execution of the punishment or treatment or care is completed, or the execution of the treatment or care is suspended or exempted.

However, Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352 and enforced July 17, 2018, provides that in cases where a sentence of punishment or medical care and custody is imposed for sex crimes, an order shall be issued simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to prevent the employment or actual labor of the institution, etc., for a certain period from the date of termination or exemption of the execution of all or part of the punishment or medical care and custody (where a fine is imposed, the date on which the punishment becomes final and conclusive).

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018) provides that "the amended provisions of Article 56 shall apply to persons who committed sex crimes before this Act enters into force and who did not receive a final judgment."

An employment restriction order under the above revised provision is an incidental disposition that is imposed simultaneously with a conviction of a sex offense case, and there is no illegality in the remaining conviction part of the judgment below.