A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months and suspension of qualifications for six months.

However, the above imprisonment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall record or listen to a conversation between others that is not open to the public.

Nevertheless, around October 18:37, 2014, the Defendant installed a recording device in the vehicle under the name of the Defendant in order to secure evidence of the relationship with the Defendant’s wife D, and recorded the foregoing conversation between D and D in order to obtain evidence of the relationship with the Defendant’s wife D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. Each statement made by the witness F and D in the second public trial records;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of statutes governing field photographs, recording devices, photographs, recording records;

1. Article 16 (1) 1 and Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to imprisonment, taking into account the favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing) of the mitigated amount

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (in the case of imprisonment with prison labor, consideration has been made more favorable than the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Since the automobile E in which the instant tape recorder was installed is the vehicle owned by the Defendant, the Defendant’s installation of a tape recorder on the said vehicle to record conversations between D and F does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets.

2. Article 3(1) of the Act on the Protection of Communications Secrets provides that “The recording or listening of conversations between others that are not open to the public shall not be recorded or heard.” The purport is that a third party who does not participate in the conversation from the original point of view shall not record or listen to the speech between others (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9053, Dec. 27, 2007, etc.). The conversation between D and F, which is conducted in the vehicle operated by D, the Defendant’s wife, falls under “unclosed conversations between others” as provided in the above Act, and even if the recording place is owned by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant.

Even for the above automobiles.