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

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall censorship any mail, wiretapping any telecommunications, provide communication confirmation data, record or listen to conversations between others that are not open to the public without recourse to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, the Criminal Procedure Act or the Military Court Act.

On January 9, 2019, the Defendant filed a divorce lawsuit against B, who is his spouse, and doubtful B’s external rating to record conversations between B and the other party. On January 21, 2019, the Defendant purchased a tape recorder (M Q-L500) around January 21, 2019.

On January 30, 2019, around 15:17, the Defendant entered a parking lot near the branch of the D Union located in the Namwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and installed a tape recorder that was purchased under the vehicle driver’s seat as above, and on the same day, B, who was aware of the fact, recorded a conversation with F that was exchanged with the vehicle driver’s seat on the same day, and recorded a conversation between others that was not disclosed on seven occasions from the above date to January 31, 2019 on the following day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Investigation report (the date and time of dialogueing the contents of recording and specific report for the other party);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to screen pictures installed under the bottom of the driver's seat of the E-vehicle, CCTV-recordings in the G parking lot, and CCTV video-recordings;

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

1. Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)5 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr.

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Execution (with respect to imprisonment, it shall be considered that the imprisonment has been imprisonment, as follows, for a more favorable reason)

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for six to five months, and suspension of qualifications for one to two years;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: the sentencing criteria shall be set for a violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act.