The meaning of “wire wiretapping” under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act and whether the act of acquiring knowledge of telecommunications that has already been received is also included in such act (negative)

According to Article 2 subparag. 3 and 7 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, “wire wiretapping” means acquiring or recording the contents of telecommunications by listening to or communally reading the sounds, words, symbols, images, or images of the type of telecommunications transmitted or received by electronic means without the consent of the party concerned with respect to the telecommunications transmitted or received by electronic devices, devices, etc. However, the act of telecommunications transmitting or receiving the text of the relevant provision is merely the subject of wiretapping, and does not provide for the contents of telecommunications being kept after the transmission or receipt is completed, and generally, the act of wiretapping refers to the act of listening to other persons’ conversations or the contents of communications under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and does not include the act of acquiring knowledge of the contents of telecommunications already received.

Subparagraph 3 and 7 of Article 2 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12407 Decided July 26, 2012

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011No3910 decided April 5, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 2 subparag. 3 and 7 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, “wire wiretapping” in the same Act means acquiring or recording the contents of telecommunications by listening to or communally reading the sounds, words, symbols, images of telecommunications through electronic or mechanical devices with respect to the transmission or reception of all kinds of sounds, words, symbols, or images by electronic means without the consent of the party concerned or interfering with the transmission or reception of telecommunications. However, considering the following: (a) the language and text of the relevant provision only prescribes telecommunications acts of transmitting or receiving telecommunications as the object of wiretapping; (b) the content of telecommunications being kept after transmission or reception is not prescribed as the object thereof; and (c) Generally, wiretapping refers to the act of listening to other persons’ conversations or contents of telecommunications; and (d) such act does not include the act of acquiring the contents of telecommunications that have already been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12407, Jul. 26, 2012).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the hearing or recording of the contents of telecommunications, the transmission and reception of which, was completed, does not constitute "wireck" under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and rendered a not guilty verdict of the defendant of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)