The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is as follows: C, the complainant, from around December 2001 to December 2008, and the defendant was living separately from the weekends only; and after December 2008, the complainant's withdrawal request for separate living until the present day; the complainant made three times a divorce declaration form against the defendant; on December 2008, the defendant prepared a separate letter of confirmation at the complainant's request; and thereafter, the defendant filed a request for divorce with the Jeju District Court around April 2009, and the crime of this case occurred thereafter, it is reasonable to view that there was an agreement between the defendant and the complainant at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, the complainant constituted a case where the defendant expressed his intention to divorce with respect to each of the crimes of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of this case.

2. Where the judgment party has no intention to continue the marriage and the intention to divorce exists, even if the marital relationship remains legally, the declaration of intention corresponding to the end of the marriage, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be deemed to be included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such an agreement, even if the intention to divorce is expressed by both parties on the interim and interim basis, it does not constitute the case of inter-liver transit, even if it is expressed by both parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977 Decided November 27, 2008, and 2009Do14965 Decided March 25, 2010, etc.). Based on these legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the health care of the instant case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, ① the Defendant and the complainant were residing in the ancient family and were to be dismissed as Cheongju around December 2001, and around that time, the Defendant and the complainant were to be dismissed as Cheongju.