All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The Defendants’ request for adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendants had sexual intercourse on July 10, 2010.

B. Legal principles 1) Since there was a de facto divorce agreement between Defendant A and his spouse, it constitutes a case where there is a spouse’s end-of-life. 2) Since the crime of adultery is in violation of the Constitution, the Defendants are acquitted.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) In the case of the crime of adultery between men and women, it is difficult to expect the existence of direct physical evidence or witness since the act was conducted under a confidential or outside circumstances between the parties. Therefore, it is recognized that the crime is established by comprehensively taking account of all kinds of indirect evidence about the situation before and after the crime (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977 Decided November 27, 2008). The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. Comprehensively taking into account these facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendants were sexual intercourse at the time and place indicated in the facts charged (the defendants were birth of the defendants at the time, and thus they were unable to engage in a sex relationship. However, in light of the fact that the defendant A and the defendant B's Y-STR DNA was discovered in the erosion apartment at the time of the on-site dispatch, the above assertion was not reasonable, and there was no economic difference between the defendant A and his family members before his marriage was completed between the defendant A and the defendant B.1, his family members.