When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

No one shall collect, use, or provide location information on an individual or mobile object without the consent of the individual or the owner of the mobile object.

Nevertheless, the defendant purchased location tracking devices from the information and communication in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was suspected that the victim D, who is his spouse, for the purpose of identifying the location of the victim, and collected the location information of the victim by attaching the tracking devices to the victim's location tracking devices at the right side of the E-car of the victim's E-car, which was parked in the front of the 107-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 40 of the relevant Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information regarding criminal facts and Article 40 subparagraph 4 and Article 15 (1) of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Alternative Location Information, and Selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant, without the consent of the victim, installed machinery at the rear wheels part of the victim in order to confirm and track the location of the victim in the divorce lawsuit, and collected and used the victim's location information without the consent of the victim. In light of the importance of personal information, etc., the crime is disadvantageous to the defendant: Provided, That the defendant recognized the criminal facts of this case and expressed his/her reflective intent against the mistake, and the primary offender are favorable to the defendant, and all other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act are considered to be considered.