beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, prior to March 16, 2012, there was an obvious agreement between the Defendant and his/her spouse on divorce, and thus, it should be deemed that he/she was imprisoned. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant A of an unfair sentencing was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The sentence of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.
B. Each of the punishments (two years of suspended execution in August) against the Defendants of the lower court by the Prosecutor is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination of the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A 1) In a case where the parties to a marriage have no intention to continue the marriage and there exists a mutual agreement with the intention of divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, an expression of intent corresponding to the end of the agreement, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be deemed included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such agreement, even if the intention of divorce is expressed by both parties on a temporary and temporary basis, it does not constitute a simple use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do984, Jul. 9, 2009). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the original judgment and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.
Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit. On March 3, 2012, the defendant sent e-mail indicating the intention of divorce to E spouse, and E also sent to the defendant on March 4, 2012, "The defendant sent e-mail stating that 70,000 won and 500,000 won per month to 70,000 won and 500,000 won per month to the child support," "the same day", "P does not have any condition to enter us."