A. As to the violation of the Act on Probation, etc. and Electronic Monitoring, etc., among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was subject to probation under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the former Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. (amended by Act No. 9112, Jun. 13, 2008) (amended by Act No. 9112, Jun. 13, 2008) (amended by Act No. 9112, Jun. 13, 2008). Thus, the lower court acquitted him/her on the ground that the Defendant was subject to probation under the Act on Probation, etc. (hereinafter “Probation Act”).

However, in full view of Article 9(3) of the Electronic Monitoring Act, Article 2 of the Addenda (Act No. 9112, Jun. 13, 2008) and Article 4 of the Addenda (Article 10257, Apr. 15, 2010) of the Electronic Monitoring Act, a person subject to an attachment order of an electronic device under the above Act is subject to probation under the Probation Act during the period of attachment, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and one million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 9 of the Electronic Monitoring Act provides for a system where a court declares a judgment on a specific crime case, at the same time, sentencing a judgment on a case claiming an attachment order.

This system has been enacted on April 27, 2007, and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Electronic Monitoring Act (Act No. 10257, Apr. 15, 2010) (Act No. 9112, Jun. 13, 2008) newly established as the Electronic Monitoring Act (Act No. 9112, Jun. 13, 2008) provides for an attachment order after the judgment of the court of first instance, even if it cannot be ordered to attach an electronic device due to the Act on the Attachment of Electronic Devices and its amended Act, which was enforced before September 1, 2008.