The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of recording the instant conversation by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is likely to expect the Defendant to lawful act in light of the content and content of the recording.

Since the responsibility cannot be seen, the responsibility is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case to have erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of suspended qualification) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail by providing a detailed judgment under the title “judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.”

Examining the above judgment of the court below after closely comparing the records, it is justified and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

It does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the instant crime recorded a conversation that was not disclosed between C and third parties, and submitted it to an investigation agency, thereby resulting in the risk of infringing the privacy of C and third parties.

However, after completion of C and a mobile phone call, the Defendant listened to the third party and the Defendant’s examination room at the time of the completion of the cell phone call with the victim and the Defendant, and recorded it in consideration of the motive.

The contents of the instant conversation recorded by the Defendant are limited to the examination part of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not divulge it to any other place than that submitted to the investigation agency. The degree of violation of the privacy of C and third parties is significant due to the instant crime.

It is also difficult to see it.

The defendant is in the trial of the court.