The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not separate or charge a location tracking electronic device (hereinafter “electronic device”) from his body due to a sense of shameing, sense of humiliation, etc., and did not intend to impair the utility of the device.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A person against whom an electronic device is attached shall charge, carry, or manage an electronic device so that the function of the electronic device can be maintained normally during the period of attachment [Article 14(1) of the Act on the Protection Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act]. (b) A person who committed a specific crime can carry a portable tracking device with his/her own independent residential space or family members, etc. where the person subject to attachment intends to enter and leave another person’s living space or space in common, regardless of his/her own residential space or family members, etc. where the person subject to attachment is equipped with an electronic device and take additional measures to facilitate the sound rehabilitation of society through the surveillance of protection after the period of punishment is completed for preventing recidivism of the person who committed the specific crime, taking into account the legislative intent of the electronic device attachment and the function and purpose of the tracking device installed with an electronic device to protect citizens from specific crimes.

Therefore, where a person subject to attachment does not carry a portable tracking device in violation of this and prevents the tracking of electromagnetic waves of an attachment device by entering the same place, it constitutes a case where the utility of an electronic device is harmed by Article 38 of the Electronic Monitoring Act or by any other means (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1719, Mar. 15, 2017).