A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 record a conversation between others that is not open to the public or listen to it through the use of electronic or mechanical devices.

Nevertheless, from January 20, 2020 to February 7, 2020, the Defendant recorded a conversation between others that was not disclosed five times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, by using a tape recorder in the C office located in Gangwon-do, and by using a tape recorder in the Defendant’s possession of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to multiple-suspects;

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. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 and 5 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (limited to imprisonment);

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

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for six to seven months and suspension of qualifications for six to three months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not set.

3. The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the following circumstances and the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act:

Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant recorded a conversation among others over several times.

This is a crime that infringes on the fundamental rights of the parties to dialogue, and the quality of the crime is not easy.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment, in addition to punishment imposed by a fine for a single-use crime.