2. Provision of water;

except that the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. 피고인 ○○○ 피고인 ○○○는 1989. 5. 26. ★★★와 혼인신고를 마친 배우자 있는 사람이다 . 피고인 ○○○는 2013. 11. 19. 19 : 30경 청주시에 있는 ' ~ ' 모텔에서 피고인 ♤♤♤와 1회 성교하여 간통하였다 .

2. The Defendant ○○ was aware of the fact that the Defendant ○○ was a spouse, and the date and time as indicated in paragraph 1, and at the same place as indicated in paragraph 1, the Defendant ○○ and the Defendant ○○ had sexual intercourse once with the Defendant ○○.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the Defendants did not have any record of the commission of the crime, taking into account the details and details of the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime)

Judgment on Defendant 000 and Defense Counsel's argument

피고인과 변호인은 피고인이 ★★★와 이미 이혼을 하기로 합의한 상태였고, 혼인관계의 실체가 더 이상 존재하지 아니한 상태였으므로 ★★★의 간통에 대한 종용의 의사표시가 있는 경우에 해당한다는 취지로 주장한다 .

If the parties to a marriage do not intend to continue a matrimonial relationship and the parties agree with the intention of divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, the declaration of intent corresponding to the end, which is the prior consent to the adultery, is included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such agreement, the provisional, temporary, and conditionally, the intention of divorce is expressed by both parties, but it does not fall under the case of inter-livering use.

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, ●●●가 법정과 수사기관에 제출한 진술만으로는 피고인과 ★★★ 사이에 잠정적인 이혼의사가 쌍방으로부터 표출되어 있었다고 볼 수 있을지언정 양 당사자 사이에 이혼의사의 확정적 합치가 있었다고 보기는 어렵다 .

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.