The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the sentenced sentence of six months of imprisonment and six months of suspension of qualifications) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor ex officio, the instant crime is an offense subject to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years and suspension of qualifications for not more than five years pursuant to Articles 16(1)1 and 3(1) of the former Protection of Communications Secrets Act (amended by Act No. 1229, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same). According to Article 44(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower limit of suspension of qualifications is one year or more.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspension of qualification for six months, and thus, the lower court was unable to maintain any further.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and it is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 16(1)1 and 3(1) of the former Protection of Communications Secrets Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Although the Defendant’s act of recording the conversations between others is not good for the reason of sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence, the Defendant’s act of recording the conversations between others is not good for the crime, on the other hand, that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects it, that the Defendant was close to the extent that the dialogue between G and H was not present, and that G and H were aware of it, that H as a party to the conversation wanted to take the Defendant’s wife, that H as a party to the conversation wanted to take the Defendant’s wife, and that there was no history of criminal punishment other than receiving the suspended sentence in around 202.