The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the sentencing (a sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, a suspended sentence of three years, an order to attend a lecture, 40 hours, three years restricted on employment, and confiscation);

2. Ex officio determination

A. Application of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities: Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; effective from June 12, 2019) provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order that prohibits persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years; however, such order may not be issued in cases where the risk of re-offending is considerably low or where special circumstances that prevent the restriction on employment exist.

However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that Article 59-3 of the Act shall also apply to persons who have committed a sex offense and have not received a final and conclusive judgment prior to the enforcement of the Act, and the facts charged in the instant case are sex offenses and thus, it is necessary to examine and judge whether the period of restriction on employment should be determined pursuant to Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities

The judgment on the employment restriction order under Article 59-3 (1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act is an incidental disposition to be sentenced simultaneously with the conviction of a sex offense case, and all of the judgment below should be reversed even if there is no error in the remaining defendant's case, so the entire judgment of the court below

B. The lower court, on the first trial date, adopted and examined all the evidence requested by the prosecutor, and explained the evidence of conviction as indicated in its holding in determining the guilty of the facts charged.

(1) However, it is against the defendant prepared by the senior judicial police officer No. 5, as adopted by the court below.