However, the above imprisonment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is between the victim B and the husband.

Anyone shall be prohibited from censorship of mail or wiretapping telecommunications, from providing data verifying the confirmation of communications, or recording or listening to conversations between others that are not open to the public, without recourse to the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets, criminal litigation or military court's law.

1. On February 16, 2012, the Defendant stated that, for the purpose of securing the victim’s non-conceptic evidence, the Defendant recorded a tape recorder in the Eknif vehicle owned by the victim that was parked in the vicinity of his/her own residence located in C apartment D, and recorded the contents of a telephone conversation that was not disclosed between the victim and F, and the facts charged in the indictment (ii) that “recording the contents of a telephone conversation and wiretapping the telecommunications.” However, according to the evidence and the record of the instant case, the recorded contents are cultivated by the victim while communicating with the other party, and they do not constitute “telecommunications” under the Telecommunications Secret Protection Act, and constitute “compacting” in a telephone after a call.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the part of the facts charged in the instant case, which wiretapping telecommunications, recorded a conversation between other persons that is not open to the public, is identical to the applicable laws and statutory punishments of each act even if the correction is made. It is difficult to view that the Defendant violated the Defendant’s right of defense because it does not dispute whether the Defendant is a wiretapping of telecommunications or a recording of other human conversations

was made.

2. On May 17, 2012, Defendant 1 recorded, on the same ground as the foregoing paragraph 1, recording of the contents of telephone conversations between the victim and his woman, which were not disclosed to the public, in a small room located in his/her own dwelling place of C Apartment D and concealed the tape in a c apartment site inside a c apartment site, and around that time, recorded other people’s conversations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses B, H and I, respectively.