A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on April 12, 2005.

At around 02:00 on October 26, 2007, the Defendant sent F and once sexual intercourses with F and F at F’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, as well as F and F until November 20, 207, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Complaint and the Receiving Certification Institute;

1. The first sentence of Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of issue at each time of sale) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. 집행유예 형법 제62조 제1항(2001년 도로교통법위반죄로 벌금 70만 원을 받은 외에는 다른 범죄전력이 없는 점 등 정상 참작) 쟁점에 관한 판단 간통죄에 있어서의 유서(宥恕)는 배우자의 일방이 상대방의 간통사실을 알면서도 혼인관계를 지속시킬 의사로 악감정을 포기하고 상대방에게 그 행위에 대한 책임을 묻지 않겠다는 뜻을 표시하는 일방행위로서, 간통의 유서는 명시적으로 할 수 있음은 물론 묵시적으로도 할 수 있는 것이어서 그 방식에 제한이 있는 것은 아니지만, 감정을 표현하는 어떤 행동이나 의사의 표시가 유서로 인정되기 위하여는, 첫째 배우자의 간통사실을 확실하게 알면서 자발적으로 한 것이어야 하고, 둘째 그와 같은 간통사실에도 불구하고 혼인관계를 지속시키려는 진실한 의사가 명백하고 믿을 수 있는 방법으로 표현되어야 한다

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do868 delivered on July 7, 2000, etc.). According to the evidence, D came to know of the cross-competence between the Defendant and F, after having come to know of the cross-competence between the Defendant and F, D was a director at the family in which he had previously resided and moved into an apartment to reside with the Defendant and her children, and twice the amount of the Defendant.