The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

No one may wiretapping mail censorship telecommunications, provide communication confirmation data, or record or listen to conversations between others that are not open to the public, without following the provisions of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, etc., the Defendant installed a tape recorder of the size of the gate in the E-Saaaaaaa-type C underground parking lot in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, and recorded that the above D dialogues with FF and cellular phone from the said car at around 14:00 on the same day.

The defendant recorded a conversation between others that is not open to the public.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Recording records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the statement of D;

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

1. In light of the circumstance in which the defendant, on the ground of sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (a period of grace: imprisonment with prison labor for three months, suspension of qualification for one year), discovered a fraudulent act between the defendant's husband and F (Article 2, 1, 36, 44, and 67 of the Investigation Records) in a divorce lawsuit, the defendant could prove a fraudulent act between D and F using a mobile phone through inquiry, etc. about the details of communication between the defendant's husband and F, but the defendant could not be denied the illegality or responsibility of the crime of this case.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case, and the motive and circumstances leading up to the defendant to commit the crime of this case (in around 2012, the defendant's husband's husband D was trying to proceed a divorce in court due to the appearance of the defendant's husband D's husband F, but the defendant's husband was able to write down the defendant's husband and left the defendant's husband smoothly due to D's reflect, but D did not seem to have the opposite nature, such as again going against F's appearance, and it did not appear that D's external appearance had the intention to collect evidence of this case).