The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five months and by a fine of two thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intentional crimes and misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the violation of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders due to the violation of the duty to maintain the utility of each electronic device, was merely a simple negligence and did not commit such act with intent to impair the utility of the location tracking device.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes for Ex officio Determination provides that "where a court declares a conviction (excluding the postponement of a sentence) against a person who has committed a sexual crime, the court shall concurrently issue an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for a period of up to 500 hours: Provided, That the same shall not apply in special circumstances where an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a program is not possible." The crime of obscenity in the instant case constitutes a sexual crime under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which constitutes a sexual crime under Article 2(1)1 of the Act

However, despite the above erroneous determination by the court below, the above erroneous determination by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this court in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

As such, the lower judgment is not reversed on the ground that it is so decided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1029, Apr. 26, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8736, Sept. 27, 2012).

3. mistake of facts by the defendant.