The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the marital relationship between E and A, the complainant at the time of the instant case, was in distress, and the complainant and A had no intention to continue the marital relationship, and thus, there was a paper of agreement between the complainant and A. Therefore, even though the complainant did not intend to continue the marital relationship with A, the complainant’s filing of the instant complaint constitutes abuse of the right to file a complaint, and thus, the judgment dismissing the prosecution should be pronounced

B. The Defendant was aware that A was divorced at the time of the instant case, and thus there was no intention to make a mistake.

C. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As an offense subject to victim’s complaint, which can be discussed only when the spouse’s complaint is filed, a complaint may not be filed in the event that the spouse uses the adultery. In fact, in a case where the parties have no intention to continue the matrimonial relationship and there is an obvious agreement between the intention of divorce, the marital relationship remains legally.

Even if there is no such agreement, the declaration of intention on the paper, which can be called the prior consent of the other party's adultery, shall be deemed as included in the agreement, and if there is no such agreement, the provisional, temporary, and conditional intention of divorce is expressed by both parties.

Even if it does not fall under the case of adultery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1188, Mar. 22, 1991). According to the records, the marital relationship between A and the complainant E was not limited prior to the occurrence of the instant case. It is recognized that E appointed an attorney-at-law prior to the formation of the instant case and made a preparation for divorce, but it is difficult to view that there was a mutual agreement between A and E with the intention to impliedly recognize a different relationship between the two different relationships. Thus, it is difficult to view that there was a mutual agreement between A and E.