The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment shall be suspended against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was an agreement between the defendant A and the complainant prior to the crime of this case, prior to the misapprehension of legal principles, the indictment of this case against the defendants constitutes an illegal case and thus, a judgment dismissing the prosecution of this case should be rendered.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence on June of each year’s imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants alleged the same purport in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail in the part on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.” Unlike the judgment of the court below, the lower court closely examined the Defendants’ assertion in comparison with the evidential materials, and the Defendant A got confirmation of the intention of divorce at the investigative agency around October 2010, but did not report a divorce by considering the future of the children.

Around March 3, 2013, the complainant sent a text message to Defendant A, stating that “The complainant and the Defendant sent a telephone call on the following day, but it is difficult for the complainant to see that the complainant and the Defendant expressed a conclusive and unconditional intention of divorce solely for the aforementioned reasons, even though the telephone call was not clearly revealed.” In light of the above, the complainant and the Defendant were entered into the confirmation of the intention of divorce by agreement between the complainant and the Defendant.

The fact that the complainant sent the above text messages to Defendant A cannot be deemed to have employed the intercompact.

B. Defendant A is the first offender, and Defendant B is only punished by a fine for other crimes, and Defendant B was punished by assaulting Defendant A, and Defendant A’s withdrawal and separation for more than three years thereafter, and the marriage was already broken down.