The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an employee of the FF corporation in charge of fire-fighting duties entrusted by E.

Anyone shall be prohibited from censorship of mail or wiretapping telecommunications, the provision of data verifying the confirmation of communications, or recording or listening to conversations between others that are not open to the public without recourse to the provisions of the Communications Secret Protection Act, etc.

On January 5, 2016, the Defendant stated “A district” in the indictment of H-Research Institute C, located in G around 14:45, but according to the daily work order for the suppression of the fire brigade, the place where the Defendant recorded the recording appears to be “C district” fire brigade office.

Since there is no concern that the exercise of the defendant's right of defense may be seriously disadvantaged, it shall be corrected ex officio without going through the amendment procedure of indictment.

In the lawsuit of claim such as confirmation of the worker status brought by E at the fire brigade office, I and J recorded a conversation between others not disclosed by using the Defendant's cell phone for the purpose of using it as evidence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

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

1. Article 16(1)1 and Article 3(1)1 of the former Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets (Amended by Act No. 15493, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) on criminal facts

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 and 5 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Six months of imprisonment to be suspended and one year of suspension of qualifications;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the grounds for sentencing”) of the suspended sentence

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The argument that the Defendant’s recording of a conversation does not constitute “unpublished conversation between others” is that the conversation between I and J (hereinafter “instant dialogue”) is a conversation in a social domain formed in a public space, and thus is not disclosed.