A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has a spouse who has completed a marriage report with C on June 5, 2001.

On January 2012, the Defendant passed a single sexual intercourse with F in the “E” located in Jeonnam-gun, Manan-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness C’s legal statement; 1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to F;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on marriage relation certificates

1. The first sentence of Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of suspended execution under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) in a separate state with C at the time of the instant case, where consultation was shared on July 11, 2012, and where the first crime is committed

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion begins with C around October 2010, and is in a de facto divorce status at the time of the instant case, and thus, there was a liverment.

2. In a case where the judgment party has no intention to continue the marriage and there exists a mutual agreement between the intention to divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, it shall be deemed that the declaration of intention corresponding to the end, which is the prior consent to the adultery, is included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such an agreement, even if the intention to divorce is expressed by both parties on a provisional, interim, and conditional basis, it does not constitute a simple use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do984, Jul. 9, 2009). In light of the developments leading up to separate use, behavior after separate use, and the relationship between C and the defendant, etc., known by each evidence as indicated in the judgment, it is difficult to view that there was an obvious agreement between the defendant and C on the intention to divorce corresponding to the end, beyond the expression of the intention to temporarily and temporarily divorce on January 2012.