All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The defendant's request for adjudication on constitutionality is dismissed.

A. Defendant (Definite 1) did not have access to D. 2) The lower court convicted the Defendant on the grounds that the complainant voluntarily brought about in the Defendant’s residence and the result of DNA appraisal on this issue. However, the foregoing failure, etc. was illegally collected, and the DNA appraisal result has no probative value to prove the facts charged of this case.

B. It is unfair that the prosecutor (e.g., six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unfunied.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: In the case of a crime of adultery, the act is conducted under a confidential or hard condition between the parties, and thus it is difficult to expect a direct physical evidence or the existence of a witness is difficult. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the crime is proved by taking account of all the indirect evidence about the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977, Nov. 27, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts are acknowledged.

A) Around June 21, 2010, the complainant filed a divorce lawsuit against D, a legal couple who filed a marriage report with E, the complainant on February 8, 2007, and has two children under the sleep. The Defendant was aware of the fact that D was married between D and D’s postship, D’s marriage, and D’s marriage. B) Around June 21, 2010, the complainant showed the appearance that the Defendant and D took their descendants, and entered the Defendant’s studio building of Seoul Special Metropolitan City FF 304, and filed a divorce lawsuit against D on the same day.

C) On June 22, 2010, at around 23:30 on June 22, 2010, the complainant heard the Defendant’s new studio outside the above studio of the Defendant and entered the studio (the complainant was required to open a door and enter the studio). The complainant stated that “at least three minutes were required to open a locked door,” and the Defendant opened a door at the police.