2007Do392 Telecommunications

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2006Do562 Decided December 29, 2006

April 12, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

According to the records, the defendant appealed the judgment of the court of first instance on the sole ground of unreasonable sentencing, and dismissed the appeal at the court of first instance. In such a case, the defendant may not appeal the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to a mistake of facts due to insufficient deliberation or a mistake

In addition, even if the parties to a marriage have no longer an intention to continue the marriage and if the parties to a marriage agree with the intention to divorce, it shall be deemed that the agreement is included in the agreement even if the marital relationship remains legally, which is the prior consent to the adultery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do868, Jul. 7, 200; 97Do245, Nov. 11, 1997). In the crime of adultery, one act expressing that one spouse renounces the other spouse's intention to continue the marital relationship and will not be liable for the other party's act with the intention to continue the marital relationship with the intention to give up the other party's marital relationship with the intention to keep the marital relationship with the intention to hold the other party liable for it, it shall not be deemed that there is a restriction on the method, but it shall be deemed that the parties' intention to act or expression the other party's opinion with the intention to agree with the other party's opinion, and it shall be 2010Do 2014.

8. The facts that Co-defendants in the first instance trial and the defendant knew of each of the livers in this case and they told that they will be able to write down if they are true in order to receive a written self-statement. The facts that Co-defendants in the first instance trial had been transferred to the domicile of temporary complainants after the written notification of the resident registration in this case. However, such circumstance alone does not mean that the complainants and Co-defendants in the first instance trial had no intention to continue the marital relationship any longer at the time of each of the livers in this case, and it is difficult to view that the complainants expressed their intent to completely waive the bad faith of Co-defendants in the first instance trial and to continue the marital relationship in spite of the livers in this case. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Shin Jae-chul et al.

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Lee Jae-chul