2015 Highest 3929, 2016 Highest 123 (Consolidation) Probation against Specific Offenders; and

Violation of the Electronic Monitoring Act

A person shall be appointed.

○○○, ○○ (Public Prosecution), ○○○ (Public Trial)

Attorney ○○○

April 28, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Criminal facts

On May 24, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to three years of imprisonment for a crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) and completed the execution of the sentence in Chuncheon prison on June 19, 2014.

On May 24, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to three years in Seoul High Court to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.), five years in which personal information was disclosed, and five years in order to attach an electronic tracking device. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant is a person who is currently in the period of attachment of an electronic device by attaching a location tracking device to the Defendant at the Seoul Northern Probation Office.

[2015 Height 3929] A person with a location tracking device shall not arbitrarily separate, damage, interfere with radio waves, alter data received, or otherwise impair its utility during the period of electronic device attachment.

Nevertheless, on October 31, 2015: around 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) damaged the part of the O-dong O-dong O-dong O-O-O-O00 adjacent to the GO-O00, by melting the fixed fee and string part of the electronic device into the LO-O-S0; (b) separated it from the body at will, and (c) reduced its utility by cutting it into the way along with a portable tracking device.

[2] A person with a location tracking device installed shall not arbitrarily separate, damage, interfere with radio waves, alter data received, or otherwise impair the utility of the electronic device from his/her body during the period of attachment of the electronic device. Nevertheless, during the period from December 14, 2014 to February 10, 2015, the Defendant damaged the part at the entrance of the fixed gate, which is the part for the conclusion of the electronic device, using a tool, while harming the utility of the electronic device by arbitrarily separating from his/her body the part at the entrance of the fixed gate, which is the part for the conclusion of the electronic device, from December 14, 2014, to February 10, 2015, on February 22, 2015:05.

2. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant did not possess a portable tracking device for approximately 22 minutes from around 56 to around 08:18 of the same day, thereby undermining its utility by preventing the location of the person subject to attachment under the said electronic device from grasping the location of the person subject to attachment.

3. On February 10, 2015: (a) the Defendant did not possess a portable tracking device for about 18 minutes from around 02 to around 06:20 on the same day; (b) prevented the Defendant from grasping the location of the person wearing an electronic device through the said electronic device.

Summary of Evidence

[2015 Highest 3929]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The first and second prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A copy of the processing ledger, such as location tracking, risk warning, etc. (No. 10 No. Serial of evidence);

1. Requesting the location tracking device of the Seoul Probation Director to investigate the electronic device;

1. Two copies of the judgment; and

1. A copy of a notice of mandatory matters for execution of attachment orders;

1. Two copies of a photograph of gambling side on the port side;

1. Four chiefs of fixed e-documentt electronic products;

1. One copy of a photograph of a portable tracking device, the liquid of which has been destroyed;

1. A criminal investigation report (the details in currency of a suspect with a person in charge of probation office);

【2016 Height123】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Oral statements of the witness ○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, respectively; 1. Oral statements of a witness recorded in a witness recording file among the 2nd trial records by the Jung-gu District Court 2015 High Court 1626 High Court records;

1. Each statement of any witness O or OO recorded in the recording file of witness examination in the protocol of the third trial of the District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 1626;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement on ○○ and ○○○;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Inquiries and replies to inquiries;

1. Probation conditions;

1. The processing ledger, such as location tracking, risk warning, etc.;

1. Copy of the judgment;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Results of the search of prisoners and investigation reports (Confirmation that the crime is committed during the period of repeated crimes);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 38 and 14(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders; the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. Claims by the defendant and defense counsel;

The defendant did not damage the electronic device like the 2016 Highest 123 criminal facts, and rather, the probation officer was damaged in the process of replacing the electronic device because he did not use the exclusive device while replacing the electronic device.

2. Determination:

In light of the following circumstances recognized based on the foregoing evidence, it is reasonable to view that the damage to the above e-mail was caused by the Defendant’s act, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since it is reasonable to deem that the damage to the e-mail was caused by the Defendant’s act, in light of the e-mail (hereinafter “e-mail”)’s e-mail as stated in paragraph (1) of the 2016 Highest 123 criminal facts.

(a) Where a damaged electronic warning is issued, a probation officer shall enter into a contract with a fixed brut with a brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut brut which

B. In the event of entering into a fixed volume of an electronic device with a subsidy with a fixed volume of an electronic device, it cannot be deemed that damage would be caused due to the attachment of an electronic device on the part of the conclusion tool in which the electronic device is linked with a fixed volume of an electronic device. As such, it is difficult to create a damaged trace of the electronic device (hereinafter referred to as “damage trace of the electronic device of this case”) with the aforementioned execution method, such as facts constituting an offense of 2016 High Order 123.

다. 이 사건 전자발찌의 훼손흔적은 전자발찌 고정피스 상판과 하판의 측면 결합부분 ( 이하 ' 전자발찌 고정피스 결합부분 ' 이라고 한다 ) 과 전자발찌의 고정피스 상판과 하판을 결합시키는 역할을 하는 상판 및 하판 내부의 산 모양 돌기 부분 ( 이하 ' 전자발찌 고정피스 상판 및 하판 내부의 돌기 부분 ' 이라고 한다 ) 에서 나타나는데, 전자발찌 고정피스 결합부분의 훼손흔적은 날카로운 물건으로 찍힌 것 같은 모양의 움푹 페인 흔적으로 나타나고, 전자발찌 고정피스 상판 및 하판 내부의 돌기 부분 훼손흔적은 돌기의 산 모양이 부러져 있는 모습으로 나타난다. 그런데 우선 전자발찌 고정피스 결합부분의 훼손 부분이 나타나는 부분은 전자발찌 고정피스 중 면적이 좁은 측면으로 일반적으로 전자발찌를 한 상태에서 전자발찌를 어딘가에 부딪혀서 생길 수 있는 부분이 아니고, 전자발찌 고정피스 상판 및 하판 내부의 돌기 부분에 있는 훼손 흔적은 전자발 찌 고정피스 결합 부분에 여러 차례에 걸쳐 가해진 타격으로 인하여 돌기 부분이 약해진 이후 전자발찌 고정피스 결합 부분에 더 큰 물리력이 가해지면서 돌기 부분이 부러진 것으로 분석되었다. 즉 전자발찌 고정피스 상판 및 하판 내부의 돌기 부분이 부러진 이유는 위 돌기 부분에 직접적으로 물리적인 힘이 가해진 것이 아니라 전자발찌 고정피스 결합부분에 지속적으로 가하여진 물리력에 의하여 밀리면서 생긴 것이다 .

D. The damage trace from the e-mailt of this case indicates the damage trace to the extent that a small hole can be seen to be dumped to the extent that the e-mailt cannot be confirmed without hearing an explanation from the person who analyzed the damage trace.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s fixed e-mails around November 24, 2014, around December 3, 2014, around December 3, 2014, and on December 2, 2014

10. On December 14, 2014, a replacement was made at the request of the Defendant on or around December 14, 2014, and thereafter there was no replacement from February 10, 2015, which is the date of the crime under paragraph (1) of the crime of paragraph (1) of the same Article, until February 10, 2015. Meanwhile, on January 13, 2015, the Ministry of Justice decided to replace an electronic device with a metal project. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant was inspected after completing the sexual assault treatment program at the probation office, and was inspected as to whether to conclude the installation, and only replaced with a metal project with a fixed electronic device with a metal project, and even on January 1, 2015, the Defendant was replaced with a fixed electronic device.

there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion.

F. On January 5, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant complained of stress and inconvenience on the attachment of an electronic device while under the influence of alcohol, and confirmed that the probation officer was able to find the device at the probation office as the Defendant’s residence, and confirmed that the part of the contract was normal. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant complained of stress and inconvenience on the attachment of an electronic device under the influence of alcohol, including, but not limited to, the crime No. 123 (1) on February 10, 2015, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant tried to walk the electronic device at the probation office, and tried to separate the device’s upper and lower part of the fixed fee, and the Defendant was given damage warning.

G. The defendant should attach 24 hours during the period of the attachment order, and the defendant's relocation to his domicile to his own government probation office, despite the absence of any functional problem in the electronic attachment certificate of this case, there is a problem in the performance of the electronic attachment certificate to the probation officer.

In particular, the defendant seems to have been in a state of emotional anxiety to the extent that he would not sleep if he did not see stress due to the attachment of e-mail and without drinking.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one month from September to September 15;

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Offenses for which the sentencing criteria are not set; and

Although the Defendant is aware that the remaining crimes except the crimes specified in paragraph 1 of Article 2016 Highest 123 Criminal facts are divided and reflected in depth with respect to the crimes of this case, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, depending on drinking without any effort to overcome inconvenience and stress with respect to the attachment of the electronic device imposed on him, and the Defendant seems to have been tryed to resolve stress caused by the attachment of the electronic device from time to time in the state of drinking without any electronic problem with regard to the electronic device attachment; the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case despite having received education from the probation officer on the fact that the Defendant cannot arbitrarily destroy and dismantle the electronic device, taking into account the fact that he was unable to attach, carry, and manage the electronic device to execute the electronic device attachment order of the electronic device and maintain the utility of the electronic device, the Defendant committed the crimes of this case, despite having received education on the fact that he could not arbitrarily destroy and dismantle the electronic device, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s family relation with the specific crime of this case, etc., the Defendant’s age 2015.

Judges Kim Jong-ran