1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3.Provided, That it shall be for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles had already agreed on divorce on December 2, 2009, prior to the occurrence of the instant case, and this constitutes a case in which the spouse scamblings, the lower court should have sentenced the dismissal of prosecution as to the instant facts charged, and even if not, the notification of genetic appraisal result, among the evidence employed by the lower court, cannot be admitted as evidence unlawfully collected by the complainant, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant asserts whether there was a simple appearance or not, that not only agreed on divorce with the complainant on December 2, 2009, but also remitted KRW 40 million to the complainant as a result of the division of property pursuant to the above agreement on December 22, 2009, and that the vehicle owned by the Defendant was transferred around January 13, 2010 to the vehicle owned by the Defendant, and thus, this constitutes a case where the complainant closed the adultery.

On the other hand, in a case where the parties to a marriage have no intention to continue the marriage and the parties agree with the intention of divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, the declaration of intention corresponding to the end of the agreement, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be deemed to be included in the agreement. In the absence of such agreement, even if the intention of divorce is expressed by both parties on a provisional, interim, and conditional basis, it does not constitute the case of inter-concing use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do868, Jul. 7, 2000). In light of the records, the examination is conducted.