The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by one year and six months of imprisonment.

The defendant shall be 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of the police statements made by the victim without credibility, which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds of the victim’s police statement without credibility, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of program for treating sexual assault, 5 years of order for restriction on employment, 5 years of order) sentenced by the lower court on the grounds that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, she was not committed at all, and the victim filed a criminal complaint with the police with the intent to drive away from her home, according to the direction of the Defendant’s wife E, her mother.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 15889, Dec. 11, 2018) uniformly prescribes that a person who was finally and conclusively sentenced to punishment or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime should not operate a child-related institution or provide employment or actual labor to a child-related institution, and uniformly sets the period during which the operation, employment or actual labor is not possible (hereinafter “employment restriction period”).

However, Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018; effective June 12, 2019; hereinafter referred to as “Child Welfare Act”) which was amended by Act No. 15889, when a court declares a sentence or medical treatment and custody for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall, by judgment, declare an order to operate a child-related institution during the employment restriction period, or to prevent a child-related institution from being employed or having actual labor (hereinafter referred to as “employment restriction order”) simultaneously with a judgment on a child abuse-related crime case: Provided, That there are special circumstances where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low or