beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant of the Prosecutor.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (Defendant A), the court below found Defendant A not guilty of the charge of the instant crime on the premise that Defendant A was involved in the trade of fishery products conducted at the point of difficult dynam Cancer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “dynam Cancer point”), and on the other hand, it erred in the misapprehension of facts.
B. Defendant B (1) A is a person who led to the transaction of fishery products at the point of flick in misunderstanding of facts, and Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged against Defendant B, although the fact was not involved in the transaction of fishery products, there is an error of
Defendant
B argued that the record No. 128 No. 128 of the evidence list, CDs are inadmissible, but this part of the argument was withdrawn during the second trial of the trial of the party.
(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on Defendant B
A. First, we examine ex officio determination (1) record No. 128 of the evidence list submitted by the prosecutor as evidence, and the admissibility of CDs as evidence.
Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act provides that "wireck" means acquiring or recording the contents of telecommunications by listening to or communally reading the sounds, words, symbols or images of telecommunications through electronic or mechanical devices without consent of the parties concerned or interfering with transmission or reception of telecommunications.
Article 3 (1) of the same Act provides that no person shall wiretapping telecommunications without recourse to this Act, the Criminal Procedure Act or the Military Court Act, and Article 4 provides that the content of telecommunications known or recorded by illegal wiretapping in violation of Article 3 shall not be admitted as evidence in a trial or disciplinary procedure.
According to this, telecommunications wiretapping is a third party's telecommunications.