Anyone shall be prohibited from wiretapping telecommunications without going through the provisions of Acts such as the Protection of Communications Secrets Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 20:00 on November 27, 2017, entered the facts charged in B in the phone conversations with C and the victim D in connection with the issue of conflict between Ecompact meetings at the Bcompact meeting located in the south of Korea. However, since telephone conversations between individuals is obvious and cannot be deemed to constitute “alternativeization,” the Defendant revised and acknowledged the same to the extent that it does not infringe the Defendant’s right of defense. The content to be stated was recorded using the Defendant’s cell phone without obtaining the consent of the victim, and was recorded using the Defendant’s cell phone without obtaining the consent of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant wiretappingd telecommunications.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (Attachment of a sound recording file), - a sound recording file CD (Defendant’s sound recording file and C sound recording file);

1. Article 16(1)1 and the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Protection of Communications Secrets Act (Amended by Act No. 15493, Mar. 20, 2018) concerning criminal facts

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 55(1)5 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Six months of imprisonment to be suspended and suspension of qualifications for six months;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following grounds for sentencing) of the suspended sentence

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s cell phone recording of the contents of telephone conversations between the victim and C is merely a recording of the contents of conversations between the victim and C with the victim during the recording of the conversations between the Defendant and C by using the Defendant’s cell phone (it is merely an intentional recording of the conversation between the Defendant and C). The Defendant did not intentionally record the conversations between the victim and C. Thus, the Defendant’s intentional act was committed in the instant crime.