In 2020, when an amendment to the ‘Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes’706) was proposed to prevent secret recordings of sexual intercourse, it was pointed out that if the voice of sexual intercourse is recorded with a mobile phone or small recorder without the consent of the other party, the recorded voice file is the same as an illegal video. On the other hand, the court had recognized that a reporter violated the right to voice by recording and broadcasting the contents of a call without notice,707) but recording a call at interviews has become a common practice.708) On the other hand, the people who oppose the amendment to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act claim that unfair distribution of recorded files and intimidation are punishable under the current law, and it is not desirable to impose criminal punishment for recording daily conversations. Moreover, since recording has been used as a means of proving social irregularities, such as workplace harassment, fraud, and corruption, there will be many unfair victims if the amendment is passed.709) For the socially underprivileged, who are routinely exposed to abuse of power, verbal violence, intimidation, and sexual harassment, recording of phone calls or conversations is almost the only means to prove their suffering, and when a person cannot know when such abuse may occur, it is difficult to respond to social irrationality if the requirements for illegality are vaguely defined as ‘when it is in the public interest.’ The Constitutional Court also ruled on the former Framework Act on Telecommunications, which prohibits false communications for the purpose of harming the public interest, with the gist of “the meaning of the public interest cannot be objectively determined through the ordinary interpretation by the law enforcement officers.” In other words, even if there is a proviso clause, there will be other controversies regarding the public interest. 705) Legal Times, “Preventing violation of right to voice vs Concern for excessive penalty”…‘Controversy over prohibiting recording without consent, Sep. 13, 2022 706) Submitted by Rep. Kang, Seon-wu, Bill No. 2105476, Nov. 18, 2020 707) Media Today, Should ‘unauthorized recording’ by the media be illegally regulated and banned?, Dec. 23, 2020. 708) Media Today, Reporters are concerned about “reduction of coverage” due to the People’s Power’ Call Recording Prohibition Act,’ Sep. 8, 2022. 709) Hankyoreh, ‘Recording phone calls without consent’ 10 years of imprisonment?, Aug. 29, 2022 292