[1] The method and requirement of the correspondence

[2] In a case where the complainant did not express his/her intent or act while living together for several years, whether the complainant can be deemed as an implied document (negative)

[1] Although there is no restriction on the method as it may be implicitly and explicitly stated that the adultery can be explicitly and explicitly, it shall be expressed in a way that the true will to continue the marriage is apparent and reliable, in order to recognize the existence of a certain behavior or the expression of intention that expresses the sentiment as an expression of the adultery. In addition, it shall be expressed in a way that the true will to continue the marriage is apparent and reliable, regardless of such correspondence.

[2] In a case where the complainant did not express his/her intent or act with the knowledge that the complainant was living together for several years, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have implicitly expressed the above adultery.

[1] Article 241 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 241 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Do2049 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 366) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Meu1 delivered on February 23, 1971 (No. 19-1, 84)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Choi Jae-ho

Daegu District Court Decision 98No1227 delivered on February 5, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The number of detention days after Defendant 1’s appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

The First Ground for Appeal

Although there is no restriction on the way of communication as well as explicitly and explicitly expressing the parties’ intentions, in order to recognize a certain behavior or expression of intent to express an appraisal as an expression of communication, it should be expressed in a way that the true will to continue the marriage regardless of such an expression of communication with the clear and reliable intent (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2409, Nov. 26, 1991). In a case where the complainant did not express or act with the knowledge that the defendant is living together for several years, and the complainant did not express his/her intent or act, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the complainant impliedly expressed the above communication (see Supreme Court Decision 71Meu1, Feb. 23, 1971).

In this case, the judgment of the court below that the complainant cannot be deemed to have neglected the defendants' statements is just in light of the records and the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the adultery or misunderstanding of facts as pointed out, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

The Second Ground of Appeal

The Supreme Court's established precedent that one crime of adultery is established for each sexual intercourse, and the defendants living together with others for a long time does not constitute a single comprehensive crime.

This ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and as to Defendant 1, part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)