Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

Anyone shall be prohibited from censorship any mail, wiretapping any telecommunications, furnishing communication confirmation data or recording or listening to any conversations between others that are not open to the public, without recourse to the provisions of Acts, such as the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, etc.

Nevertheless, around June 2013, the Defendant: (a) attached a position tracking device for anti-around 2013, “Spomi,” i.e., “E-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed W-Wed-Wed-Wed W-Wed W-Wed-Wed W-Wed W-Wed-Wed W-Wed W-Wed-Wed W-Wed-Wed-Wed W-Wed,

Accordingly, the defendant listened to and recorded conversations between others that are not open to the public.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of CD 1 (No. 1);

1. Articles 16(1)1 and 3(1) of the former Protection of Communications Secrets Act (Amended by Act No. 1229, Jan. 14, 2014) concerning criminal facts

1. Four months of imprisonment to be suspended and one year of suspension of qualifications;

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of suspended sentence;

1. Although the crime of this case, which infringes on the freedom of communication of the recording subjects by recording conversations between others without the consent of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, is no less than the nature of the crime of this case, the defendant was unable to properly recognize that the above act was in violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act at the time when he was suspected of committing the act of incompetence by his spouse, he was attached to a protective location tracking device that has a wiretapping function on his spouse’s vehicle in order to confirm whether it is true. However, it seems that the defendant was unable to properly recognize that the above act was in violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. The defendant confirmed the fact of incompetence of his spouse through the above process, and eventually, through