통신비밀보호법위반등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months and suspension of qualifications for one year.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is examined only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the previous grounds for appeal after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal.
Although the Defendants’ act identical to the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act as an inevitable measure to verify whether G, etc.’s misconduct and minimize damage to E (hereinafter “E”), the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in October, suspension of qualifications, one year of suspended sentence in June, suspension of qualifications, six months of suspended qualifications) are excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the legal principles, "act which does not violate the social rules" as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and which act is justified as an act that does not violate the social rules, and the illegality of which act is dismissed should be determined individually and reasonably under specific circumstances, under the following circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the benefit and the benefit of infringement; (iv) balance between the benefit of protection and the benefit of infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2680 Decided May 27, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, Defendant A was informed of the instant case that the so-called so-called “sprinking” organization, around March 201, intrudes with L branch, and as a result of the investigation, it pretends that members are recruited even if the L branch did not actually recruit members.