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. A. On February 16, 2012, the Defendant had no record of the crime by hiding the tape recorder on the aforementioned date and time with the vehicle owned by the victim.

B. On May 17, 2012, the Defendant only operated a tape recorder to monitor the victim’s behind the Defendant’s room and did not intend to record the contents of telephone conversations.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. There was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant also asserted that this part of the grounds for appeal are factually identical to the allegation in the lower court, and the lower court rejected this part of the allegation in detail in the “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel” of the judgment.

In this part of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc.

Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the content of the written reply by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Scientific Analysis Division of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office submitted to this court alone was altered by a file (the file name: 413) recorded on or around February 16, 2012 with the victim and the branch, and otherwise, it affects the formation of a documentary evidence during the hearing process of this Court.