The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the non-guilty portion of the facts charged in this case (the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence Nos. 2 through 15 among the charges in this case), the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this part, even though the defendant violated the victim protection order No. 1 as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. The result of the judgment of the court below that was unfair in sentencing (exemption from punishment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant and the victim B (53 tax, female) are legally married couples, and the Defendant had the record of having received a disposition from the Seoul Family Court on July 5, 2019 against the victim B from the Seoul Family Court.

On July 21, 2019, the Defendant violated an order not to access 100 meters from the residence of the Defendant in the above parking lot owned by the Defendant at approximately 80 meters away from the victim’s residence in the Songpa-gu Seoul apartment Ddong parking lot on July 21, 2019, such as a violation of an order not to access 100 meters from the residence of the victim among the victim protective order determined by the court.

9. By December 22, 200, the lower court violated the victim protection order issued by 14 times in total, such as the sequence 2 through 15 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the lower court.

(2) The lower court’s judgment (A) 2 parts (the part on the request for the Ponice-friendly Gu) at a net time, and according to the records of this case, the Defendant filed an application for a friendship with the victim’s P on August 23, 2019, using the Ponice-fluenc system around 00:35, on August 23, 2019, and at the time, applied for a friendship with the victim’s Ponice-flucing account, depending on the establishment of the victim’s Ponice-flucing notice of the victim’s handphone, it appears that the Defendant intentionally displayed the victim’s Handphone-friendly application on the victim’s handphone or e-mail address by January 4, 2020.