1. Since the electronic monitoring has been implemented in 2008, positive uation of EM is predominating through the society. This is because EM serves an important function as Preventive Measures in which protective custody was repealed.
EM only targeted sex offenders in the early stages, but have been expanding its target area to serious criminal offences such as kidnapping and murder. The use of EM is increasing every year and the period of attachment of device is extending. Moreover, the offenders who were released on parole were a large part of its target, but since 2010, those who already completed their term of imprisonment are rapidly becoming the main target of EM.
However, EM in the current law system has numerous problems. Above all, there is no certain restrictive law in the EM system. For example, there needs to be a interchangeability between EM and imprisonment. That is, there is no alternative to imprisonment in the current location tracking law and no restriction to period of EM. In addition to this, EM can be imposed as probation, and cohabitant, victim and the target person are not well cared in terms of the management. Therefore we need to modify the regulation and legislation.
Futhermore in the context of which the ministry of Justice tries to implement protective custody, it is the time to study on the Preventive Measures.
This study reviews major issues of EM and the state of its use and examines how to effectively facilitate EM in protective custody.

2. Punishment and Security Measures are imposed by different perspectives.
Imposing punishment is about taking responsibility for crime by offender, while Security Measures is about a risk of recidivism by offender predicted. Therefore, treatment of convict also has to be different on what is sentenced. Security Measures deprives offender's liberty due to risk of recidivism even though the offender already served his/her time as sentenced. So, no one can accuse the offender who is on Security Measures of crime. Rather, we might have to appreciate them that they accepted the deprivation of their liberty for the public security. Thus, it is not acceptable that offender be punished, but only accepted the deprivation of their liberty. This study examines the ways for treatment of convict in the light of freedom and reintegration into society and suggests alternative solutions. North Kyeong-Buk 3 Prison, Cheon-an prison, Su-won prison, Tagel prison in Berlin, riihimaki prison in Finland and Centre socio médico-judiciaire de sûreté in France were visited and discussed the directions for treatment of convict needed in probation with many professionals in various field. The conclusion of this study about treatment of convict on probation in Korea is as follows. First, offender on probation can use private living room which is larger than 15m2. In the living room, there have to be TV, individual computer, desk, books, mirror, clock, family pictures and so on. In addition, prisoners should be guaranteed to have freedom as much as possible without breaking any rules applied. The common area should have facilities such as rest room, shower, gym, library, laundry room and entertainment area. Second, offender should be permitted to use phone and meet visitors when they want. And these kind of treatments have to be encouraged. There should be video telephone available anytime by using individual computer. There are empirical researches that family ties plays an important role in recidivism prevention. So if an offender wants to live with his/her family, there should be a house for the family to live in. Third, vocational training in particular has to be at the same level as Hwa-sung vocational training service with professional education program equipped. Especially, nowadays online training is quite available, so more professional should be provided to offenders such as cyber university. Moreover, by using social enterprise, offenders should be employed right after being release. Fourth, commute to work outside and community service are the best way to prevent offenders from de-socialization. Therefore, offenders' commute to work outside should be regularly operated. The author of this study found that target people for Security Measures are only 30-40 people. So their commute to work and communication with outside should be circular. It seems to be fair that 5-10 people in a group work together every week. Fifth, offenders should get paid more than minimum wages. Appropriate compensation for work can boost offender's motivation to work and prevent recidivism. Sixth, there should be systematic and professional program to reduce risk of recidivism. To develop these kinds of programs, politicians and many professionals in various fields should be involved to cooperate in order to make effective program. Seventh, regarding early release offender, they should be provided the right of claim (access to the court). That is, if offender is determined as not to have risk of recidivism, the offender should get right of claim to the committee for early release, and if the committee disapprove early release more than twice due to risk of recidivism, then the offender should be provided to have right of access to the court to ask for determination about his/her risk of recidivism. So far, we have looked at the most needed treatment of convict on Security Measures. We should curtail the negative side and try to help offender reintegrate into society. The offenders endure the deprivation of their liberty for the safer society, so the government have to pay a careful attention to them. There also have to be a system and awareness to treat offender equally. The society has a duty to treat offenders f airly, because they have g iven up their freedom for the safer society. If Security Measures is like punishment, it will be double punishment which is so unnecessary and unreasonable.