The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the sentencing (in the case of original trial, a fine of three million won, 40 hours after completing a program for treating sexual assault, and exemption from employment);

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 59-3(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018; Act No. 15904, Jun. 12, 2019; Act No. 1550, Jun. 12, 2019; hereinafter “Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities”) provides that, when 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 ten years; however, the same shall apply to a sex offense case where the risk of recidivism is significantly low

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.

B. Where there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the court shall not violate the principle of non-discrimination even if the court recognizes some other facts or amends the applicable provisions of Acts without modification procedures.

However, whether a defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense is substantially disadvantaged should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as whether there is a clear possibility that the defendant would be different from his/her own defense, depending on the seriousness of statutory penalty and the difference between such seriousness of statutory penalty and the basic identity of the facts charged.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Do4608, Jun. 13, 2019). In addition, the prosecutor seeks to commit the instant crime.