The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The dialogue between J and N andO (hereinafter “instant dialogue”) is deemed as follows, as seen below, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(A) Although the Defendant’s act of recording and disclosing the recording should be found guilty, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (A) The Defendant was a person who recorded the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording of the recording, without

B. The contents of telephone conversations with domestic J shall be recorded.

Even if the Defendant’s act of making a continuing recording without stopping it is deemed as recording by omission, if the Defendant knew of the fact that he started the conversation with N andO after the completion of the conversation, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s duty of commission not to record the conversations between others that are prohibited by the Protection of Communications Secrets Act arises. If such duty of commission is not acknowledged, if the recording is not acknowledged at the beginning of lawful recording, it is not necessary to interrupt the recording even if the situation of recording the conversations between others that are not disclosed as prohibited by the Protection of Communications Secrets Act occurs. In sum, this led to the activation of the recording function of smartphone, which is always carried by the State agency, media period, and private persons.