The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment against the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment and a fine of three million won.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) has not been tried due to a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc. (Rape, etc. in relation to relatives), which served as the basis for the instant attachment order, and there is no fact that the instant attachment order was sentenced, and thus, there is no obligation to comply with matters to be observed in relation to residential areas restrictions or probation.

(B) In light of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment and Article 14(3) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”) and the content that the probation officer notified the Defendant while executing the instant attachment order, the phrase “where the Defendant makes a trip outside of his/her place of residence” to be reported to the probation officer, who is the matter to be observed pursuant to the instant attachment order, means not all cases where the Defendant deviates from his/her place of residence, but only cases where the Defendant deviates from his/her place of residence for not less

However, the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the rules of residential restriction imposed by the court because he/she is merely five days out of his/her place of residence.

(C) Regarding the facts constituting the crime 2 and 1 of the judgment of the court below, matters to be observed against the defendant in relation to residential area restrictions are as follows: the Probation Act (hereinafter “Probation Act”).

In addition, since Article 9-2 (1) 2-2 of the Electronic Monitoring Act was imposed pursuant to Article 9-2 (2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act, even if the Defendant violated matters to be observed on a residential area restriction, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated matters to be observed on a residential area restriction pursuant to the Probation Act. 2) Even if that is not so, the Defendant was moving to a place that is not significantly away from the permitted moving route, and thus, the Defendant is “justifiable cause” as referred to in Article 39(2) of the Electronic Monitoring Act.