The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the court below (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act, amended by Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018; and enforced from Jun. 12, 2019, provides that where a court declares a punishment for committing a child abuse-related crime, the defendant shall simultaneously issue an order to restrict employment to a child-related institution, unless it considers that there are special circumstances that the risk of recidivism is significantly low or otherwise should not be restricted, and Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) provides that the above amended provisions also apply to a person who had committed a crime related to child abuse before the enforcement and has not received a final judgment.

The court below sentenced the defendant who committed each of the crimes in this case related to child abuse and did not decide on the employment restriction order under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and did not decide on the employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act.

However, in full view of the developments and details of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, social relationship, effects of preventing sex crimes that can be achieved by an employment restriction order, and the disadvantages and side effects of the Defendant’s entry, there are no special circumstances where the risk of re-offending by the Defendant is significantly low or the Defendant should not be restricted from being employed by a child-related institution. As such, the lower court should have ordered the Defendant not only the employment restriction order under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities

Therefore, the judgment of the court below omitted is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on employment restriction order under the Child Welfare Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

On the other hand.