In case where the respondent has made a statement that he will comply with the request for divorce in the process of the court's examination of the claimant's request for divorce, whether it can be seen as a type of adultery against each other spouse

The spouse's use in relation to the adultery refers to the prior consent of the adultery, and even if the respondent stated that he will comply with the divorce claim in the process of the court's trial on the claimant's petition for divorce, it is not allowed to recognize the claim due to the rule of ex officio detection, the above statement is nothing more than the court's decision on the cause of judicial divorce, but it cannot be viewed as an implied expression of intention to each other's spouse, considering that it is identical to the full divorce agreement between the parties in divorce.

Article 241(2) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1608, Nov. 22, 1983) (Law No. 8983, Sep. 12, 1989; Law No. 1608, Nov. 2, 1983)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Seoul District Court (88 High Court Decision 1421)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Dong Branch of Seoul District Court.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that even if non-indicted 1, who is the spouse of the defendant 1, filed a request for divorce against the above defendant, the defendant cannot be deemed to have used a simple copy of the defendant until the judgment on divorce becomes final and conclusive. However, during the proceedings of the case on divorce between the complainant and the above defendant, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's defendant's legal representative stated that he would respond to the divorce judgment of the claimant, while the case on divorce trial between the complainant and the above defendant was pending, and that the complainant implicitly used a simple copy against the above defendant. Thus, the complainant's complaint against the facts charged of this case after it is deemed to be illegal and dismissed, and the court below ruled that the prosecution of this case was dismissed. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a simple copy crime, which affected the judgment.

The court below held that the defendant 1 was the one married with the non-indicted 1 on December 15, 1979 and that the non-indicted 2 was not a certain occupation. The defendant 1, at the seat of the defendant 21:0 on September 8, 1987, and entered one time with the non-indicted 2, and the defendant 2 knew that the non-indicted 1 was his spouse at the seat of the defendant 28, and that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's spouse's consent.

2. Therefore, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's non-indicted 1 and the defendant 2's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1 and the defendant 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1 and the defendant 2's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-party's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party

3. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the prosecution of this case on the ground that the complaint of this case is unlawful and the procedure of prosecution of this case is also null and void due to its violation of the law. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is justified. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is reversed under Articles 364 (6) and 366 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court's Dong site for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)