The defendant thought that B was using a liver, who was the wife, was able to record conversations between B and others by hiding a tape recorder at the defendant's house located in B, or in Gwangju Mine District C, 603 903 dong 903.

1. On October 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concealed the tape recorder at the door of B; (b) recorded an undisclosed conversation between B and D between B and B, which took place in the mutual incompeting telecom between 03:04 on the same day and 05:06 on the same day.

2. On October 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concealed the tape recorder by the method described in paragraph (1); (b) recorded the conversations between 02:40 on the same day and 04:00 on the same day, between 02:40 on the same day and 04:00 on the same day; and (c) between B and E and F on the numberless taxi.

3. On October 5, 2014, the Defendant recorded an undisclosed conversation between B and his mother G, which was made at the Defendant’s home from 20:00 on the same day to 21:40 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning B;

1. A criminal investigation report (Binding notes related to the case);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording books;

1. Articles 16(1)1 and 3(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (Concurrent punishment of imprisonment and suspension of qualification) concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The Defendant’s crime of this case under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the grace period: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and suspension of qualifications for one year) infringes on the freedom of communication of the recording subjects by recording the contents of conversation between others without consent, and thus, the nature of the crime is not weak. However, the Defendant committed the crime in this case against his wrongness.