The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) An incorporated association, such as mistake of facts, etc.; 1) An association of Ansan-si branch (hereinafter referred to as "Masung-si branch");

on November 26, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Board of Directors of this case")

(A) The minutes of the board of directors were planned to be disclosed through the minutes of the board of directors, and the minutes of the board of directors were prepared and disclosed, and thus, do not constitute a conversation between others not open to the public under Article 3(1) of the Communications Secrets Protection Act.

2) The Defendant’s act of recording the contents of the meeting of the board of directors of the instant case constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which is to carry out the preparation of the meeting minutes of the board of directors as the secretary general

3) Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The court below’s unfair sentencing is so unfair that the sentencing is too inappropriate (a defense counsel’s written opinion submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting an appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement of the reasons for appeal specified in the reasons for appeal, and a defense counsel’s assertion that is not entirely stated in the reasons for appeal shall not be separately determined)

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) The purport of prohibiting recording or listening to conversations between others that are not open to the public 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 that make the conversation.

Therefore, recording a third party’s speech that is not originally made available to the public or listening to it by using an electronic or mechanical device is in violation of Article 3(1) of the same Act, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4981, Oct. 12, 2006; 2013Do15616, May 12, 2016). This case pertains to the instant case.