The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below considered the adopted evidence and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant had sexual intercourse as stated in the facts charged of this case with Co-defendant A of the court below and the defendant was just and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of facts as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to Article 2 of the Reasons for Appeal, one-way act indicating that one-party spouse would waive the malicious sentiment with the intention to continue the marriage and will not be held liable for the other party’s act with the knowledge of the other party’s communication, and thus, there is no restriction on the method of communication as well as impliedly and explicitly.

However, in order to recognize a certain behavior or expression of intention expressing an appraisal as an oil, first, it should be done voluntarily with the clear knowledge of the inter-spouse's communication, second, it should be expressed in such a way that the true intention to continue the marriage is obvious and reliable notwithstanding such communication.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do868 delivered on July 7, 2000, etc.). The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the complainant had committed an act of adultery with A by deeming that the complainant could not be seen as expressed in a clear and reliable manner that the complainant would have maintained a matrimonial relationship with A solely on the basis of the text of the complainant and A and the conversation between the complainant and A.

According to the records, the above judgment of the court below is correct.