The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (the mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles) did not have any fact that he rhym the victim’s left side buckbucks on the day of the instant case, and did not have any intent to commit an indecent act.

(b) The prosecutor's sentencing division (the first instance: six months of imprisonment, the suspension of execution of two years, the taking of sexual assault treatment lectures, 40 hours, and 3 years of employment restriction);

2. Determination

A. Determination ex officio (Application of Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities) Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 and enforced from June 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 that prohibits 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, such order may not be issued in cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or where there are special circumstances that prevent the restriction on employment.

However, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above amended Act provides that Article 59-3 of the amended Act provides that the above amended Act shall also apply to persons who have committed sex offenses and have not received final and conclusive judgments prior to its enforcement, so the above amended Act shall also apply. In this regard, the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The lower court did not have any objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process of the appellate court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

It seems that the argument from fact-finding to fact-finding is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is against logical and empirical rules.