The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant without intention in violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act merely listened to conversations between G, H, and I on a remote opportunity where the phone call with I had not been terminated, and there was no reason to record the conversation between others from the beginning. If the talks about the labor union division of this case were not mentioned from the beginning, G was involved in the act of unfair labor in a manager’s position, and G was committed with intent to gather evidence, and there was no other purpose or intent. 2) The Defendant’s recording of a conversation with G, etc. was intended to prepare evidence about unfair labor practice. As such, the legitimacy and means of the objective were recognized and the suitability of the means is confirmed through the recording file of this case, as well as the confirmation of the mother’s contents of the unfair labor practice of G in a position of business owner through confirming the contents of the evidence, and thus, it is also impossible to meet the requirement of urgency and supplement, since it could not be expected to take other measures on the basis of this.

Therefore, the recording of this case constitutes a legitimate act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and one year of suspended qualification) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as to the facts charged in the instant case.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and recognized the defendant's intentional act as to the violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and determined that such act does not constitute a legitimate act, by examining the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

The above circumstances revealed by the court below are in the court below.