The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Young-dong branch.

1. On April 23, 2013, K, the summary of the grounds for appeal, found Defendant B, and denied the cross-conception at the time of pursuing the cross-conception. As such, K cannot be deemed to have been aware of the Defendants’ cross-conception. Accordingly, as K continues to pursue Defendant A, K recognized the cross-conception of the Defendants, and filed a divorce lawsuit and filed the instant complaint, in light of the fact that K had been aware of the cross-conception of the Defendants’ cross-conception during July 2013, 2013, K issued a letter on April 23, 2013 at the time of the first police investigation.

The statement is merely an erroneous statement made by mistake.

Therefore, although the complainant could not be deemed to have expressed his/her intent as a adultery, the lower court’s dismissal of the prosecution of this case on the ground that the indictment procedure of this case was unlawful as it was based on an illegal accusation by deeming that the complainant had taken care of the fact that he/she had taken part in the adultery, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the statements of the crime of adultery.

2. Determination

A. On June 29, 198, Defendant A (a summary of the facts charged in relation to the inter-section and inter-sections) was a spouse who has completed a marriage report with K on June 29, 198, and was sent to B and once sexual intercourse in the Murmo 202 room located in the Mamo-gun L in the Cheongcheon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, Mamo-do, on April 7, 2013. (b) Defendant B knew that he is a spouse of the above A, the date and time described in paragraph (1) and the place described above, and had the same sexual intercourse with A as above.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) around April 2013, the complainant called Defendant B to contact Defendant B with Defendant A at the complaint, and asked Defendant A to doubt the relationship between Defendant A and the Defendants in the KNeeeung Port Co., Ltd.; (b) after ascertaining the sex relationship from Defendant A and finding Defendant B at around April 23, 2013 at the restaurant operated by Defendant B; (c) K was ② at the first police investigation date.