2013No1460 Telecommunications

A

Defendant

Gangwon-dong (prosecution) and Jinscin (public trial)

Attorney H (National Assembly)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Ma495 Decided May 1, 2013

July 18, 2013:

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

Since the Defendant agreed to divorce with C on September 22, 2012, the Defendant constitutes a case where C uses the adultery of the Defendant. Therefore, the prosecution against the Defendant should be dismissed as there is no validity of the adultery complaint.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of suspended sentence in four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, ex officio, the defendant who is the spouse's five-time concurrent acts should be subject to concurrent crimes. However, the court below imposed an excessive punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

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

원심이 적절히 설시한 법리 및 판단근거에 더하여 ① 피고인은 이 사건 마지막 범행 직후 2012. 11. 17. 수사기관에 2012. 9. 23. 이후로 남편 C와 별거 중이었고, 이혼을 하자 해도 연락도 무시하고 대꾸조차 없으며, 시댁에서는 이혼이란 건 안된다며 지금까지 연락도 없이 지냈다고 기재한 진술서를 제출한 점(수사기록 제43쪽), ② 피고인은 알고 지내던 D과 2012. 8.부터 연락을 시작했고(수사기록 제21, 35쪽), C가 피고인의 남자관계를 의심한 일로 2012. 9. 22. 심하게 다투다 별거를 시작했고, C는 201211. 16. 피고인을 미행하여 D과 함께 모텔에 있는 것을 신고한 점(수사기록 제10쪽), 그밖에 인정되는 피고인과 C 사이의 부부간 갈등의 원인 및 과정, 그 과정에서 C가 보인 태도 및 이혼소송의 진행경과 등에 비추어 보면, C와 피고인 사이에 서로 다른 이성과의 정교관계가 있어도 묵인한다는 의사가 포함된 이혼의사의 합치가 있었다고 보기는 어려우므로, 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the evidence related thereto are the same as those stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

In addition, the sentence is imposed as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the defendant is generally committing a crime; the defendant is the primary offender; the changes in social perception about the crime of adultery has been considered; and the defendant's age, character and conduct and environment; motives, means and results of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc. specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Judge Jeon Soo-young

Judges Han Sung-jin

Judges Park Jin-ro