The judgment of the court below is reversed.

No. 1, No. 2-A, and No. 2-A to No. 3 of the judgment of the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) the Defendant withdrawn his/her argument of mental and physical weakness on the date of the second trial in the trial.

A. In fact, the Defendant was found to have lost a portable tracking device while driving, but did not have any intention to impair its utility.

B. The sentence of the court below (the crime No. 1, No. 2-A through No. 3: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, the crime No. 2-D, E, and No. 3 in its holding): Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The court below held that the crime No. 3 (the violation of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, etc. due to the violation of the matters to be observed by each protection observation subject) was one of the crimes as set forth in its holding, and that the crime No. 2-Ra of the above crime and the crime No. 2-Ra of the judgment, and No. 5 of the former part of

Based on the judgment, one sentence was imposed on each of the above crimes.

However, since the violation of the code of practice under Article 39 (2) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Establishment, etc. of Electronic Devices (hereinafter “Electronic Devices Act”) is a legal interest to properly observe the matters to be observed by the persons subject to the attachment and the persons subject to the surveillance of protection, to promote sound rehabilitation to society, and to protect the people through prevention of recidivism, one crime is established at each time of the act of re-violation (where several acts of re-violation are prosecuted as concurrent crimes, it shall be stated in the facts charged so that the facts can be specified by specifying the date, time, place, and method at each act). Thus, the part of the judgment of the original court as a single crime of each crime under paragraph (3) of the above Article is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Devices Act (re-violation of the code of practice). Furthermore, among the crimes under paragraph (3) of the judgment below, the date and time of each of the above crimes is stated in the judgment below.