Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim B are legally married couple who reported marriage on May 3, 2016, and currently the Daejeon Family Court is in progress of divorce litigation.

On May 2017, the Defendant violated another person’s secret transmitted through an information and communication network by installing an automatic telephone recording function on a mobile phone owned by the victim under the name of confirming whether or not the Defendant was out of the victim B, 1101 and 2302, which was a Sejong Special Self-Governing City Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SCR”), and recording and listening to the contents of the victim’s telephone on a mobile phone owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in the list of Handphones closure photographs and sound recording files;

1. Article 71 (1) 11 and Article 49 of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. On June 2, 2017, the summary of the charge of dismissing the prosecution under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (the fact that the defendant appears to be against the defendant, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, etc.) was assaulted by the victim B (the victim, the age of 34) and other people on the ground that the defendant talked with the victim B (the victim, the age of 101 and the age of 2302) on the ground that he talked with the victim B (the victim, the age of 34) of the Special Self-Governing City of Sejong around 00, and talked about the moving male-gu with the victim on two occasions.

However, as a crime falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, a public prosecution may not be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim in accordance with paragraph (3) of the same Article.

According to the public trial records, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on July 23, 2018, which is after the institution of public prosecution. Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.