A. There was a justifiable ground for misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles to believe that the Defendant breached an obligation to restrict going out of a specific time zone, such as night time.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s violation of the code of conduct on outing restrictions imposed on the attachment order of an electronic device does not constitute a justifiable ground.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On October 20, 2014, the Defendant was ordered by the Seoul High Court to attach an electronic tracking device for three years on the grounds that the Defendant violated the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (special robbery, etc.) and was subject to special matters to order the Defendant to “from 00:000 to 06:00 each day to leave the Defendant’s residence and place of work outside the Defendant’s place of work” during the period of electronic device attachment.

② On September 9, 2015, the Defendant stated that the Defendant ought to contact the protective observation officer to leave the Republic of Korea, and that the protective observation officer may be legally punished if the Defendant leaves the Republic of Korea at night without justifiable grounds.

Even though they did not go without permission, they were sent to around 00:51, the time of restriction on going out without permission.

In addition, the defendant did not return home, even if he received several warnings to return home because he violated the rules of restriction on going out from the protection observation officer at the king-dong, Sinsi-dong, Singu, Sinsri-si.

③ The Defendant violated the code of conduct on outing restrictions in an investigative agency in order to go to an interest in the front place due to the fact that the Defendant was in the house of the Defendant located in the inside of the front place and the need to extend the contact to the front place, and that it did not contact the front place.