The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months suspension, and forty hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment course) is deemed unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by taking into account various circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing, as stated in its reasoning, and there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

The sentencing of the court below is not unfair.

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904 on December 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019, Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Disabled Persons applies to a person who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the Act, and did not receive a final and conclusive judgment, the court shall examine and determine whether to issue an employment restriction order to a person with welfare facilities for disabled persons and the period of employment restriction.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, the risk of recidivism, family environment, social relationship, the details and motive of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime; (b) the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage caused by the employment restriction order; (c) the prevention and effect of the sex offense that may be achieved by such order; and (d) the effect of the protection of victims, etc., the employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled cannot be issued pursuant to the proviso to Article 59-3(1) of the above Act.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.