Specific degree of the crime necessary for the complaint of the crime of adultery

Although the criminal facts should be specified in the complaint for the crime of adultery, the specific degree can only be determined by specifying what criminal facts the complainant wishes to punish, and it does not require the complainant to specify the criminal facts in detail by stating the date, time, place, method, etc. of his/her own criminal facts. Since the crime of adultery is common in case of complaint before the complainant confessions his/her criminal facts, even if it is not known of the specific criminal facts, it shall be deemed that the complainant expresses his/her intent to punish any criminal acts during the period unless there are special circumstances to deem that the complainant does not have to be punished in particular for any criminal acts during the period, and it is reasonable to deem that the crime of adultery is a crime of adultery, unless there is a specific circumstance to deem that the complainant does not have to be punished for any criminal acts during the period.

Article 241 of the Criminal Act, Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1704 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1871) Supreme Court Decision 87Do114 delivered on October 25, 1988 (Gong1988, 1490) Supreme Court Decision 90Do603 Delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2245) Supreme Court Decision 97Do1769 Delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 815) (Gong199Sang, 1098)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 99No5588 delivered on August 31, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Although the criminal facts in the complaint for the crime of adultery must be specified, the specific degree can only be determined by specifying what criminal facts the complainant wishes to punish the criminal, and it does not need to specify the criminal facts in detail by stating the date, time, place, method, etc. of his/her own crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do576, Apr. 23, 199). Since it is common that even if the criminal defendant is accused before he/she confessions his/her criminal facts, it cannot be known even if he/she does not know the contents of the crime, the complaint for the crime of adultery shall be deemed to have expressed his/her wish to punish all the criminal acts during that period unless there are special circumstances to deem that the criminal facts do not have been punished in particular by setting the time and termination period, and it is reasonable to deem that the crime of adultery is specified as a specific degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do576, Oct. 23, 198; 200Do1968, Apr. 19, 198).

According to the records, Co-defendant 1 was the husband of the above defendant who was separated from the court of first instance, and is the non-indicted 1 who was the defendant of this case. On January 18, 1999, prior to the complaint of this case, he has already been sent a certificate that he had been interviewed with the above defendant on January 8, 199, but no later than time was available after receiving a letter. However, on February 23, 1999, he again discovered the facts together with the above defendant and the above defendant 1 and the above defendant 1 and the defendant 2, who was the defendant's husband of this case. The defendant 1 and the defendant 9, prior to the above defendant's complaint of this case, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, prior to the above defendant's 9:00 on February 7, 199, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, prior to the above defendant's non-indicted 1 and the defendant 9, prior to the defendant's non-indicted 1 and the defendant 9.

In addition, if there are circumstances, even if the complainant stated in the suspect examination protocol of the above defendant prepared by the court police assistant, around December 30, 1998; around January 10, 199; around January 20, 199; around January 30, 199; and around January 30, 199 that the above defendant wants to be punished for concurrent acts more than four times, it is nothing more than an example of specifying part of the facts of the complaint to the effect that the above defendant led to the confession of concurrent acts on the above date; and it does not mean that the defendant was an intention to exclude the acts of simple communication at other dates or places from those subject to complaint.

Nevertheless, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the complaint in the measures that sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the ground that there is no legitimate complaint against the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)