The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though he did not charge the portable tracking device by negligence or did not possess the body in a situation where the recognition function is deteriorated due to the lack of health condition, although he did not intentionally commit such act, the lower court found him guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 38 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Attachment, etc. of Electronic Devices provides for punishment for acts that a person subject to the attachment of an electronic device arbitrarily separates the electronic device from his/her body during the period of attachment, interferes with the spread of the device, alters the data received, or otherwise impairs its utility.

Here, “act detrimental to utility” refers to an act that harms the actual utility of an electronic device that causes the attachment of an electronic device to trace its location. It includes not only the act that directly undermines the function of the electronic device itself, but also the act that prevents the utility of the electronic device from being performed normally. Even if the omission is an omission, it is subject to punishment if the act intentionally prevents its utility from being performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1719, Mar. 15, 2017). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is comprehensively taken into account as follows: ① the defendant has been using a portable tracking device for three months prior to the occurrence of the instant case; ② the defendant has received education or warnings on the charge of a portable tracking device from the employee of the protective observation station at the time of the instant case; ② the defendant has not been charged even at a place where the residence can be filled, etc. at the time of the instant case; ② the Fur, an employee of the protective observation station, has been possessed by the defendant in court.