The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. All circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable factor in sentencing in the trial were revealed during the hearing of the lower court, and no particular change of circumstances is found in relation to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

Furthermore, in full view of the sentencing grounds cited by the court below and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in sentencing, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion is not acceptable.

B. According to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; and effective June 12, 2019, Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities applies to a person who has committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the aforementioned Act, and has not been finally and conclusively determined, this court shall examine and determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order on welfare facilities for persons with disabilities and the period of employment restriction.

In light of the Defendant’s age, risk of recidivism, home environment, social relationship, details and motive of the crime, method of crime, and consequence of the employment restriction order, the degree and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, the preventive effect of the sex crime that may be achieved therefrom, the victim protection effect, etc., the lower judgment is maintained without issuing an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to the proviso of Article 59-3(1) of the above Act.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.