All the judgment below is reversed.

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since a complainant withdraws a divorce suit, the indictment of this case must be dismissed.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. On February 3, 2009, the Defendant: (a) around 12:40 on September 18, 201, at a room where it is impossible to identify the room of a hotel located in the Si/Masan-si; (b) around 12:20 on November 21, 201, at a room where it is impossible to find out the room of a mutually uncertain hotel located in the Philippines; (c) around 10:45 on January 24, 201, the Defendant sent B and one time with B from the house located in the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G located; (d) around 10:20 on March 10, 201, at the G and 3: 1:5 on May 25, 2012, the Defendant was able to know the room of a hotel located in the Si/Masan-gu, Seoul, with B and 1:5 on March 10, 2012.

In this respect, the Defendant, as seen above, had a sexual intercourse with B more than six times.

B. Defendant B with knowledge that the above Defendant was a person who is a spouse of the above A.

At each date, time, and place described in the paragraph above, both A and A were 6 times of sexual intercourse.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the complainant filed a divorce suit against the Defendant A on April 12, 2013 with the Seoul Family Court 2013Ddan27612, and it can be acknowledged that the complainant withdrawn the divorce lawsuit on November 15, 2013 after the lower court rendered a judgment, and Defendant A consented thereto. However, if the complainant withdrawn the divorce lawsuit after the first instance court rendered a judgment as to the crime of adultery, the simplified notice becomes retroactively null and void due to the retroactive effect of the withdrawal. As such, the indictment of the crime of adultery is subject to prosecution, and thus, constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes.

(Supreme Court Decision 81Do1975 delivered on October 13, 1981). 4. Conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is well-grounded.