The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts did not commit a crime under Article 2-1 (a) of the judgment of the court below.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) that was unreasonably alleged in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor 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) did not stipulate the employment restriction order, and the lower court did not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.