The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the sentencing (in cases of original trial, eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, forty hours of taking the sexual assault treatment course, confiscation, three years of restriction on employment);

2. Ex officio determination

A. Reasons for reversal 1: The lower court found the victims guilty of all facts charged, and deemed each of the crimes against the victims as substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and aggravated concurrent crimes.

However, even though the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established independently by each victim, if multiple victims were taken simultaneously through one photographing act, such as paragraph (2) of the facts charged, this is an ordinary concurrent crime relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged all crimes as substantive concurrent crimes is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to aggravated concurrent crimes.

B. Grounds for destruction 2: Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; effective June 12, 2019) that amended the necessity of applying the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019) provides that where a court issues a sentence of imprisonment or medical treatment and custody for a sex offense, it shall simultaneously issue an employment restriction order to prohibit persons with disabilities from operating welfare facilities or from providing employment or actual labor to welfare facilities for a certain period not exceeding 10 years; however, the same shall apply to a sex offense case where the risk of recidivism is remarkably low, or where

In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 59-3 shall also apply to a person who has committed a sex offense and has not received final and conclusive judgment prior to its enforcement, so the above amended Act shall also apply to this case, so the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is ex officio.