The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “location tracking electronic device (hereinafter “electronic device”)” under the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”) means a series of mechanical devices that confirm the location or detect the moving route using the principle of transmitting and tracking electromagnetic waves (Article 2 subparag. 4). The electronic device is carried by a person to whom the electronic device is installed (hereinafter “person subject to attachment”) and carries a satellite location verification system (Glbal Poem) and mobile communication network, a portable tracking device, a portable tracking device, and a portable tracking device assisting the location of an electronic device installed in the residence of the person subject to attachment; the device installed in the body of the person subject to attachment; the device installed in the body of the person subject to attachment; the device installed in the body of the person subject to attachment; the device installed in the body of the person subject to attachment; and the device installed in the electronic tracking device and the device installed in the portable tracking device to attach the electronic device to the person subject to attachment (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act). 2.

Here, “act detrimental to utility” refers to an act detrimental to the actual utility of an electronic device, which 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 makes the device unable to function normally. Even in omission, it is subject to punishment in cases where the device cannot function normally (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5862, Aug. 17, 2012).