A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and suspension of qualifications for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall record a conversation between others that is not open to the public.

Nevertheless, on April 27, 2014, the Defendant recorded the conversation between C, 353 Dong 93 and Dong E with the Defendant’s wife D who had conversations outside the room using his handphones in the office of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Article 16 (1) 1 and Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to imprisonment, taking into account the favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing) of the mitigated amount

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (in the case of imprisonment with prison labor, consideration has been made more favorable than the following grounds for sentencing)

1. The Defendant’s act does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets, on the grounds that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s recording of the conversation between D and E was inside of the Defendant’s house, that the Defendant was able to hear the contents of the conversation through a opened visit, that the contents of the recording are not confidential as a day-to day-day.

2. Article 3(1) of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets provides that “The recording or listening of conversations between others that are not open to the public shall not be recorded or heard.” The purport is that a third party who does not participate in the conversation from the original point of view shall not record or listen to the statement between others (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9053, Dec. 27, 2007, etc.). Thus, the recording place is inside the Defendant’s house, and even if the content thereof does not constitute secrets, the conversation between D and E, which was made without the Defendant’s participation, constitutes “unclosed conversation between others” as prescribed by the above Act.

In addition, the defendant frequently recorded D's dialogue, etc. even before the crime of this case.