A. In order to systematically manage the vehicles owned by the Defendant, the Defendant, as the representative director, attached a location tracking device on the Spos-owned vehicles owned by the Defendant, Inc. I (hereinafter “I”), and did not have any intent to identify the location of the victim. As such, the Defendant’s attempt to collect was merely a location of the instant vehicle, and thus does not constitute a crime because the Defendant, the representative director of I, who is the owner of the instant vehicle, consented to the location of the instant vehicle.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant may fully recognize the collection of location information during the operation of the instant vehicle by attaching location tracking devices on the instant vehicle owned by I to the victim without consent of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) The Defendant and the victim were in fact in a separate state from January 2014 between husband and wife.

The Defendant used the instant vehicle as the body of the Defendant, and the victim had been using the front vehicle owned by I, and when the Defendant, which is likely to have a golf, there was a kind of change in the vehicle.

그런데 피고인이 2014. 9. 15. 경 피해자에게 차량을 바꿔 타자고 해서 피해자는 차를 완전히 바꾸는 줄 알고 서로 트렁크에 있는 물건까지 다 바꿨다.

After that date, the defendant has been on board the instant vehicle, and the victim is on board the instant vehicle.

On October 19, 2014, the victim took the phone of the defendant who is asked for the criminal records of the victim, and on the following day.