1. On January 6, 2017, the Defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence was obligated to implement an ad hoc protection order as a person subject to an ad hoc protection order with a content of prohibiting access within 100 meters from his/her residence and workplace in Seoul

Nevertheless, on January 16, 2017, the defendant entered the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 134 Dong 1302 and failed to comply with an ad hoc protection order (the defendant does not have the criminal history of being punished due to criminal domestic violence). The defendant is not a "domestic violence offender" under Article 63 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, and the defendant is not a "temporary protection order issued" under the above provision because he is not served with a written a written a written decision of provisional protection order, and it is not clear that the period of validity of the provisional protection order of this case was entered the above place under C, and it is not clear that the above provisional protection order was not violated, and therefore, Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the above Act provides that the person who committed criminal domestic violence and the co-offender who committed the above crime under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the above Act is a domestic violence offender, and there is no requirement that the criminal history of the crime is punished, and thus, the defendant's ruling or other domestic violence order issued.

Article 67-23 (3) of the Rules stipulates that notice shall be given to an offender by the method recognized, and in cases of victim protection orders, the victim and the offender shall be the victim.