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

The defendant and B were married couple, and the defendant became doubtful that the workplace B continues to be in her badial relationship with the workplace B.

1. No person who violates the Protection of Communications Secrets Act by recording shall record a conversation between others that is not open to the public, except as provided by Acts and subordinate statutes;

On August 5, 2018, the Defendant installed a tape recorder in the part inside the inside of the sunlight of the E-learning passenger car operated by B in front of the D Apartment of Gangnam-si, and recorded the conversations between B and C in the foregoing vehicle parked in the F “G” parking lot located in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si, on August 9, 2018.

2. On August 10, 2018, the Defendant violated the Protection of Communications Secrets Act due to divulgence, at the “I” parking lot located in Gangnam-si H around 10:00, the Defendant revealed the content of the recording conversation to the J, a workplace member of B, like the foregoing paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written confirmation of J;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on sound recording CDs

1. Relevant provisions of Article 16(1)1 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, the main sentence of Article 3(1)1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, Article 16(1)2 and 1 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and the main sentence of Article 3(1)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (in regard to imprisonment, repeated circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under the following consideration) is that the Defendant installed a tape recorder on his/her spouse’s vehicle and recorded and disclosed the conversations between his/her spouse and others without permission. Considering the importance of the constitutional value of ensuring privacy and freedom of private life, the act of recording and divulging conversations that are not disclosed to the spouse and others cannot be deemed to be that the liability for such crime is less.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case.