The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, had symptoms dependent on ordinary alcohol, but was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse (Act No. 15352), which was effective July 17, 2018, provides that where a court issues a sentence of punishment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense against a child or a sex offense against an adult (hereinafter referred to as "sex offense") (excluding a person subject to a fine pursuant to Article 11(5)), it shall impose an order to operate a child-related institution, etc., or to prohibit a child-related institution, etc., from operating such institution, or from providing employment or de facto labor with a child-related institution, etc., for a certain period from the date on which the execution of the sentence or medical treatment and custody is terminated or exempted (where a fine is sentenced, the date on which the sentence becomes final and conclusive) is determined and sentenced simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case (hereinafter referred to as "order to restrict employment").

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the same Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses before this Act enters into force and have not been finally determined.

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.

In this regard, the question as above is whether to issue an employment restriction order to the defendant in accordance with the amended Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse and the period of restriction on employment.