The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months and suspension of qualifications for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the facts charged in the instant case, there was no intention that the Defendant had an intention to record the conversation, such as audit G of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), as shown in this part of the facts charged.

However, the Defendant was trying to verify the work details of the D Company employees and the details of customer complaints, and to keep evidence of the tort such as G, etc. (e.g., interference with business and illegal scarts against Defendant employees).

Of the facts charged in the instant case, in the case of the intrusion of a structure (a recognized crime room intrusion), employees B instructed by the Defendant did not enter the representative director room possessed by E, etc., unlike the entries in this part of the facts charged, but only attached a tape recorder by putting the finger in the glass wall between the above representative director of the school in possession of the Defendant and his employees, and attached the tape recorder at the beginning of the year.

This act alone cannot be deemed to have reached the extent of undermining the peace of the complainants, and thus does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of qualification for six months, the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for one year, the forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

The Prosecutor’s violation of the Communications Secrecy Protection Act among the facts charged in the instant case, which led to the court’s addition to “Article 18 of the Communications Secrets Protection Act” under the law of preliminary application, while maintaining the part of the facts charged to “the conversation between the G and the needy people,” and “the person may not record or listen to the conversation between others.”