The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

On April 5, 2010, the complainant filed a complaint (hereinafter “the first complaint”) with the Busan Police Station established on April 5, 2010 without a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. On October 4, 2010, the complainant filed a complaint with the prosecutor by facsimile (hereinafter “the second complaint”). On October 4, 2010, the prosecutor made a disposition as to the first complaint without suspicion for lack of evidence, and then filed the prosecution of this case based on the second complaint for illegal reasons, such as the lapse of the period of the complaint, the failure to prepare the protocol, etc.

However, while recognizing the above defects of the second accusation, the court of original judgment recognized the legality of the indictment of this case based on the first accusation that the prosecution did not prosecute. The complainant who used or taken advantage of the inter-specing can no longer maintain a matrimonial life for the defendant A, and the complainant demanded that the complainant be able to do so, which is the case of the defendant A's inter-specing behavior, and that the complainant would not proceed with the defendant A even with the defendant B's pregnancy, and that the defendant would not proceed to divorce with the defendant B while the defendant was aware of the pregnancy of the defendant B, and that the defendant would have the child to whom the defendant would have given birth, was able to take care of the defendant A's inter-specing behavior.

The sentence of the lower court on the Defendants of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion that a legitimate accusation has been filed without a complaint, the lower court alleged that the Defendants alleged that there was an error in the judgment of conviction based on the first accusation against which the prosecution was not prosecuted, but that the prosecutor’s decision of non-suspect was an administrative disposition that does not have the same final and binding force as the judgment, and thus, if the Defendants could recognize a criminal charge of the Defendants based on new evidence after the disposition of non-suspect was made, or if there was an error in the decision of non-suspect in the decision itself,

That is, the defendants' .