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. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although there is only a fact that the Defendant was a victim by mistake of fact, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act like the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, and even if there was such physical contact, the Defendant did not have an intention to commit an indecent act.

2) The sentence of the lower court against the illegal defendant in sentencing (the sentence of six months of imprisonment, the suspended sentence of two years, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture for forty hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal.

Article 56(1) main text of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15452, Mar. 13, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) that was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; and enforced July 17, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that where the court issues a sentence or medical care for sex offenses against children or juveniles or sex offenses against which they are subject to a final judgment, it shall impose an employment restriction order that prohibits a child or youth-related institution, etc. from operating such institution for a given period, or from providing employment or actual labor to such institution, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the said Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 shall also apply to those who have committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the said Act, and have not been finally binding.

The crime of this case constitutes a sex offense subject to Article 56 of the above Act, and at the same time, the judgment of this case and the judgment of this case should be sentenced to an employment restriction order against the defendant. The order of employment restriction is an incidental disposition simultaneously with a judgment of conviction and where all or part of the disposition is illegal, the order should be reversed in whole, even if there is no error in the remaining part of the defendant's case.

However, as above.