A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and suspension of qualifications for one year.

However, the above imprisonment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 4, 2015, the Defendant is the director of Goyang-gu Seoul apartment management office, and the Defendant, at around 19:00, recorded the contents of meetings, such as D and E, in order to confirm the fact that D, the representative director of the Dong Council, will conduct an urgent special meeting, and to confirm the contents of the above meeting, he installed a small tape in the examination-provin plastic paper on the books of the Dong Council in order to verify the contents of the meeting.

The defendant recorded a conversation between others that is not open to the public.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol of examination of witness (D, F);

1. A statement of reasons for the defendant;

1. The electronic media, such as a file for accusation or a photograph CD (No. 24 times a net time) recording the contents of admissibility of evidence does not have the signature or seal of the originator or statementer due to its nature. In addition, in consideration of the risk of editing and manipulation by either the recorder’s intent or specific technology, if the content of the conversation is an original recording or a copy reproduced from the original, it shall be proved that it is a copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as compilation compilation, etc., in the course of duplication, and in absence of such proof, it shall not be readily admitted as admissibility of evidence.

Furthermore, the fact that a recording file submitted as evidence is an original recording of a conversation or a copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the course of duplication, may be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as testimony or statement by a person involved in the process of producing, transmitting, and storing the recording file, comparison with the value of the original or copy file immediately after the creation of the original or copy file, and the result of verification appraisal of the recording file (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do10978, Jan. 22, 2015, etc.). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing CD is located in light of the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: