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

No person shall record or listen to conversations between others that are not open to the public without the provisions of the Communications Secrets Protection Act, Criminal Litigation Act, or Military Court Act.

On April 21, 2016, around 12:40, the Defendant recorded the conversations with the E and F, a workplace volunteer in the room, into one’s smartphone prior to the rest room for the three-story female workers located in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement in court to the effect that he/she recorded the contents of conversation at the time and place in the judgment of the defendant without consent of E and F;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the recording accused and the defense counsel

1. Although the defendant's assertion of facts as to the facts charged in this case is acknowledged, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act, since it is merely an act of seeking the examination of false contents about the defendant and preventing defamation against the defendant.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by this court, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's argument is without merit.

A. A. The Defendant and E have been in conflict with each other. The Defendant appears to have recorded the conversations between E and F in order to use them as evidence upon filing a criminal complaint against E, and the Defendant also submitted the aforementioned recording as evidence upon filing a criminal complaint against defamation (Evidence No. 21 page of the evidence record). B. The recording of conversations between E and F cannot interrupt the conversation. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an appropriate act to prevent infringement.

(c)

After recording the conversation between E and F, the Defendant made a statement to E that “a reporter who makes a defamation once.”

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense;