The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

(2) the date of this judgment.

1. We examine ex officio the defendant's reasons for an unfair appeal for sentencing prior to the judgment.

The main text of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), which was effective July 17, 2018, provides that where a court pronounces a punishment for a sex offense against a child or juvenile or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense"), any person who has been sentenced to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5) shall be sentenced by a judgment to operate a child or juvenile-related institution, etc., or to prohibit a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. from operating such institution for a certain period from the date (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final) on which the execution of all or part of such punishment is terminated or suspended or exempted, or to order it from providing employment or actual labor to such institution, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "order to restrict employment") simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case.

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, it is necessary to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant who committed a sex offense before the enforcement of the above Act.

The former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352) has no provision on the employment restriction order. Thus, the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.

Since the employment restriction order is an incidental disposition that issues an employment restriction order simultaneously with the judgment of a sex offense case, in the event that an employment restriction order is imposed on the defendant, it shall be reversed without any error in the judgment below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

2. In conclusion, the court below's decision is erroneous for reversal of authority as seen above. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.