The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the overall sentencing conditions in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. A favorable circumstance is recognized, such as the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds of appeal is not good in health, and that the depth is pened after recognizing all the instant offenses, and that the Defendant does not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim of the instant larceny, and that the Defendant did not damage the location tracking electronic device itself in the case of the crime of violating the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

However, a strict punishment is inevitable to secure the legislative intent and effectiveness of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders for the purpose of protecting the people from specific crimes by taking additional measures to track their behaviors and attach an electronic device capable of verifying their locations in order to re-socialize through the prevention of recidivism of specific sex offenders and their personality and behaviors. In order to protect the people from specific crimes, the defendant has five times (four times of actual punishment, one time of suspended execution), and in particular, eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to the violation of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Location Monitoring of Specific Offenders on August 12, 201, and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to the violation of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on December 10, 201, the defendant repeatedly committed the crime in this case during the period of repeated punishment, age, character and conduct of the defendant, circumstances leading the defendant to the crime in this case, how the defendant committed the crime in this case, and the defendant's circumstances before and after the crime in this case.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.