The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in the absence of a forced indecent act against the victim was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service work with 160 hours and the lecture attendance order for sexual assault treatment of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), effective as of July 17, 2018, where a court issues an order to operate a child or youth-related institution, etc., or to operate a child or youth-related institution, etc., or to provide employment or actual labor, to a child or youth-related institution, etc., for a certain period from the date on which the execution of all or part of the sentence is terminated or suspended or exempted (where a fine is sentenced pursuant to Article 11(5), excluding a person who is sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)) by judgment (hereinafter referred to as “restricted employment order”), and simultaneously declares the sentence to a sex offense case, except in extenuating circumstances.

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda to the same law provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 above shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not received final judgment.

Therefore, the defendant who committed a sex offense should be sentenced to or exempted from the employment restriction order.

Since the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352), there was no provision on the employment restriction order, the lower court did not determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order or exempted the employment restriction order.

The employment-restricted order is issued simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case.