The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below acknowledged the facts charged of this case, but it is found that the defendant was not aware of the attachment of the location tracking device and 2 days ago, and the defendant started to commit each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant was in violation of matters to be observed inevitably because he did not know about the operation method. However, according to the records, the defendant's refusal to attach an electronic device was found to violate the rules. It is not good that the crime is not committed, such as failing to comply with the investigation by the staff of the probation office on the charge of tracking device and the violation of the rules to be observed even though he did not respond to the investigation by the staff of the probation office, and there is a need to strictly punish a violation in order to protect the people from a specific crime, to ensure the legislative intent and effectiveness of the law on the attachment of the tracking device to a specific criminal for the purpose of re-socializing through the prevention of recidivism and correcting of character and behavior, and in light of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, motive, means and consequence, etc.

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