The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The Guidelines for Supervision on Persons subject to Protection (hereinafter “Guidance and Supervision”) established pursuant to Article 33 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, Etc. (hereinafter “Protection Monitoring Act”) provides that a warning shall be given if the alcohol content in the blood of a person subject to protection observation exceeds 0.05%, and follow-up measures, such as arrest, detention, detention, etc., shall be taken on two or more occasions, and the above guidelines may be a supplementary provision for the “not less than one day drinking” imposed pursuant to Article 14-2 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Installation Act”). Thus, the Defendant may be deemed to have violated drinking-related rules imposed pursuant to the above provisions, so long as he/she has drinking-related regulations for more than 0.05% of alcohol content during his/her blood transfusion, and the Defendant has already violated an obligation to comply with in writing due to a violation of an obligation to comply.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Although the prosecutor stated only the mistake of facts on the ground of appeal on the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor shall be deemed to have made the same factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles in full view of the contents of the reason for appeal and the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles at the first trial date.

2. The prosecutor applied Article 39(2) of the Electronic Device Installation Act, Article 32(3)1, 7, and Article 38 of the Protection Monitoring Act to the facts charged in the instant case, and the indictment was instituted by the prosecutor, as well as the applicable law as stated in the indictment, and it is more clear that the prosecutor has punished imprisonment in the lower court and the trial (Article 39(3) of the Electronic Devices Installation Act only prescribes a fine).

However, the records of this case.