However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a person who has completed a marriage report with D on October 26, 1997.

On September 12, 2012, from around 02:00 to 03:00 on the same day, the Defendant sent to the Defendant B one-time sexual intercourse with Defendant B at the US branch near Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

2. Defendant B was aware that he was a spouse of the above A, and the same date, time, and place as described in the above paragraph (1) was sexual intercourse with A once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Witness D's testimony;

1. Part of the Defendants’ statements

1. Part of each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Private institutions, electronic identification records, family relation certificates, marriage relation certificates, and complaint for divorce lawsuit;

1. Report on investigation (requesting for appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation);

1. As to the Defendants’ assertion of evidence photographs, Defendant A asserts to the effect that, on September 12, 2012, Defendant A had no memory as to whether a sexual intercourse had occurred with alcohol, and Defendant B attempted to have sexual intercourse but Defendant A did not have a relationship with Defendant A’s refusal.

남녀 간의 정사를 내용으로 하는 간통죄의 경우, 그 행위가 통상 당사자 사이에 비밀리에 또는 외부에서 알아보기 어려운 상태 하에서 행하여지므로 이에 대한 직접적인 물적 증거나 증인의 존재를 기대하기가 매우 어려우므로 범행의 전후 정황에 관한 제반 간접증거들을 종합하여 범죄사실이 증명된 것으로 판단되면 이로써 범죄사실이 인정된다(대법원 2008. 11. 27. 선고 2007도4977 판결 등 참조). 피고인들이 서로 상대방이 배우자가 있음을 잘 알면서도 평소에 단둘이 손을 잡거나 팔짱을 끼고 길을 걷는 등 교제 중인 남녀 사이로 여겨질 만한 행동을 한 점, 피고인 B이 수사기관에서 피고인 A에게 ‘자기야’라는 호칭을 사용한 사실을 인정한 바 있는 점,...