logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
울산지방법원 2019고합72 판결
통신비밀보호법위반
Cases

2019Gohap72 Violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act

Defendant

1. A South 76. Symar;

2. B between 75 and 75. Raw Organisms

3. C. South 85. Symar

Prosecutor

public relations (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-sung (Public Trial)

Defense Counsel

Attorney* (Korean National Assembly Line for all of the Defendant)

Imposition of Judgment

July 12, 2019

Text

Defendant A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for 8 months and suspension of qualifications for 1 year, by imprisonment for 6 months and suspension of qualifications for 1 year.

each year shall be punished.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above imprisonment to the Defendants has been deferred for two years

(c)

Defendant A and B provide community service for 80 hours each, and social salary for 40 hours each for Defendant C

each order shall be issued.

Nos. 11 and 2 of the evidence seized from Defendant B, and each of the evidence seized from Defendant C shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Criminal History Office

Defendants are called to the scene of a traffic accident in Ulsan area and are in operation of the vehicle towing (one-day Bosch Rexroth), Defendant A is in operation of U.S. Dsch Rexroth, Defendant B is in U.S. Esch Rexroth, Defendant C is in operation, and Defendant C is in operation of U.S. Fsch Rexroth, respectively.

Anyone shall be prohibited from wiretapping telecommunications or listening to conversations between other persons unless he/she is subject to the provisions of the Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, upon receipt of a traffic accident report in the situation room of the 119 U.S. U.S. Fire Headquarters, have concealed the details of the scene of transmission to each regional fire station or first-aid vehicle in order to grasp the scene of the traffic accident in advance and to have the vehicle take priority in towing work after arrival in the accident site rather than other fex vehicles.

1. Defendant A

On August 2015, the Defendant purchased one portable electric unit from 136, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Magdong-ro, 136, and 'Radio', which could detect 119 U.S. by an insular means (unauthorized). From that time to February 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) sent a portable electric unit to U.S. D. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F.

Accordingly, the defendant wiretappingd telecommunications of the 119 U.S. Fire Fighting Headquarters.

2. Defendant B

At the end of August 2015, the Defendant: (a) purchased one of the portable and non-electric units 1, which he/she works at the radio station at the end of 2015; and (b) took the similar frequency zone where the 119th class can be wiretappingd upon A’s request from A; (c) installed the said portable and non-electric unit at around 2 years and 10 months from that time on July 5, 2018 on the vehicles operated by the Defendant for approximately 2 years and 119 fire headquarters; and (d) wiretapping the siteless electric units at the scene of traffic accidents sent by the Defendant to the 119 fire headquarters.

Accordingly, the defendant wiretappingd telecommunications of the 119 U.S. Fire Fighting Headquarters.

3. Defendant C

On February 2, 2018, the Defendant observed the wiretapping of the fire fighting force with the portable electricity purchased by the above Party A from the offline of Balan, Ulsan-gu, U.S. on the street, Ulsan-gu, U.S. on a day-to-day basis. “On one-time basis, I asked Party A to request the above portable electricity, and received the above portable electricity from him, and then, from that time until July 5, 2018, the Defendant attached the above portable electricity to the Defendant’s vehicle with the Busan FF Fk, which was operated by the Defendant for about five (5) months from July 5, 2018, and wiretapping the details of the traffic accident scene transmitted from the situation room of the 119 Fire Headquarters.

Accordingly, the defendant wiretappingd telecommunications of the 119 U.S. Fire Fighting Headquarters.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Each of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act Article 16(1)1 and the main text of Article 3(1)2 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing are favorable to the Defendants:

(3)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (The grounds for sentencing are as follows, for which normal conditions favorable to the Defendants have been repeated)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B and C: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

From June to five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for not more than two years and not more than six months;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria: The same shall not apply to the case where the sentencing criteria are set.

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A, B: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, suspension of execution and suspension of qualifications for one year, community service hours and 80 hours;

(b) Defendant C: Imprisonment for six months, suspension of execution, suspension of qualifications for one year, and community service hours.

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants at will during a long-term period of 119 U.S. Fire Fighting Center in order to dispatch the Defendants to the scene of an accident rather than the competitor, and it is not clear that the Defendants’ act was unlawful in that the Defendants’ wiretappingd the contents of the duties of the State’s agency to gain personal benefits, and it is not good to commit the crime. In light of the illegal practice, the Defendants need to be strictly punished inasmuch as the Defendants’ act was committed in accordance

However, on the other hand, the defendants recognize the crime of this case and reflect their mistakes, and the defendants have no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and in addition, considering all other circumstances that the conditions of sentencing specified in this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, details of the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendants shall be sentenced to punishment as ordered.

Judges

Judges Kim Jong-gu

Judges Kim Jong-sung

Judge Lee Il-il