The case which found the defendant guilty of the adultery by comprehensively taking into account all the evidence concerning the situation before and after the crime

The case holding that the defendants can be sufficiently recognized in light of the following circumstances: Defendant A’s ordinary conduct (e.g., e., going out or going out frequently with the south e.g.), or the circumstances leading up to the Defendants’ passage in a passenger car (e.g., dancing and singing under the influence of alcohol), the time (e.g., limited air space following an apartment), the husband, etc. of Defendant A’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her

Article 241 of the Criminal Act, Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Do1519 Decided February 10, 1976 (No. 24 ① type 27, No. 1976, 9013)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 9Da1428 delivered on April 6, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

One hundred and twenty-five days of detention days before the sentence of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is that according to the statement from the police of the witness 1 and 2 to the court of the original trial, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, even if the statements of the court below 1 and 2 were followed by the witness 1 and 2 of the court below, the court below found the defendants not guilty on the ground that the defendants were found guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant 2's spoke in the modern apartment model lower court, which was parked in the factory base after the spora zone in the military, Gunsan-si, and the location was not a place where street lights are installed, and that the defendant's spoke was not well-known because of the influence of the spora on the glass of the above vehicle, and that the spora was not well-known. Thus, the witness 1's witness's witness's witness's witness witness witness's sexual intercourse did not have credibility and the statement of the above witness 2 did not constitute a sexual intercourse of the defendants.

However, in crimes such as inter-party crimes, it is common to see that the above witnesses were frightened under the circumstances where it is difficult to know from the outside or outside of the above witnesses due to the nature of the above acts, and there are circumstances where it is difficult to expect witness testimony other than the victim's physical evidence or direct witness. Thus, in such crimes, the defendants should be convicted if they can be found to have committed a crime in light of experience rules based on the victim's testimony on the day before and after the crime (Supreme Court Decision 74Do1519 delivered on February 10, 197), since the defendants were inside the police station and the court below's order and this court's order, and they were inside the bar of the above defendants 1 and the defendant 2's witness's body before and after their arrival, they were out of the police station's 9 days prior to their arrival, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's witness's body were out of the above shot on the day of their arrival.

Therefore, the court below found the Defendants not guilty solely on the ground that there was no evidence that the Defendants had directly observed the appearance of sexual intercourse, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered after pleading.

Defendant 1 was married with Nonindicted Witness 1 and completed the marriage report on January 9, 1982, and Defendant 2 was a commercial employee:

1. On August 16, 1993, Defendant 1 was parked in the factory sites following the model down of the modern apartment model located in the mountain village of the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si around 23:30 on August 16, 1993. Defendant 1 was traveling across the car of the same Defendant 2 (32 years old, South) 3D (number omitted) prior to driving.

2. Defendant 2 was aware that Defendant 1 (33 years of age, female) was a spouse at the same time, at the same place, and that he was sexual intercourse with his female once.

The facts of the judgment

(a)each part of the statements that correspond to them in the trial court of the accused;

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this Court by a witness of the political party;

1. Each part of the trial records of the court below that corresponds to the defendants' statements

1. The statement corresponding thereto, among the second trial records of the court below, the witness 1 of the court below, and the statement corresponding thereto, among the third trial records of the court below, 2 of the witness 2 of the court below

1. Each protocol of examination of suspect as to the Defendants prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to this;

1. The statement made by the witness two witnesses prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to the statement;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the Defendants in preparation of the judicial police assistant, containing each corresponding statement;

1. Since each statement of the witness 1 and 2 prepared by the judicial police assistant may be recognized by integrating each statement corresponding thereto, the facts of the judgment are proven.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 241 of the Criminal Code

2. Calculation of the number of detention days before a sentence of judgment is made;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

3. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of detention for a considerable period prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment)

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges or higher (Presiding Judge) Ground;