The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall record or listen to conversations between others that is not open to the public.

Nevertheless, on February 4, 2017, the Defendant had a conversation that the spouse D, who had been in a divorce lawsuit in front of the Sung-si apartment B, and C, had a conversation that is divided into E, who is his/her father and wife, within the above Category C.

From around that time to July 16, 2017, the recording of a conversation between others that is not disclosed 11 times in total, such as the statement in the list of crimes in attached Form 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant and witness F by law;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a recording book (Evidence No. 2);

1. Article 16 (1) 1 of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets and the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. The aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes provided for in a violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, around April 9, 2017, with the largest penalty);

1. Article 53, Article 55 (1) 3, and Article 55 (1) 5 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing)

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing) of the suspended sentence

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s recording does not constitute “unpublic dialogue between others” that is intended to protect communications secrets since it is merely merely a content of the Defendant’s unilaterally direction to E and his family members (hereinafter “D”) who lack mental capacity.

B. Even if the Defendant’s recording of a family constitutes “unpublic dialogue between others”, the Defendant, with reasonable doubt that D abusess E by his or her father’s wife, recorded a recording of another person’s conversation with E to the minimum extent necessary for preventing this, and thus, social norms.