The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six months and the fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are extenuating circumstances such as the defendant's wrong conduct against himself/herself and did not repeat the crime, the defendant violated his/her obligation by impairing the utility of the electronic device by not possessing or charging a portable tracking device or blocking all of the home-to-house supervisory device, etc. The number of violations has not been substantial, and even if he/she received several guidances from employees of the probation office, he/she continues to commit the violation, even though he/she received several times, and taking additional measures to track his/her behavior to protect the people from specific crimes to ensure the legislative intent and effectiveness of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders with the aim of protecting them from specific crimes, and all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, the circumstances of the crime of this case, the circumstances of the crime of this case and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the above assertion by the court below is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

[However, Articles 38 and 13(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders are clear in the application of the law of the court below, since it is a clerical error in the "Article 38 and 14(1) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Location Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders", it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.