All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendants alleged a misunderstanding of facts together in the telecom, there is an error of mistake in the court below's decision that judged otherwise despite the absence of the fact of sexual intercourse at the time.

B. The lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the crime of adultery by misapprehending the legal doctrine is in violation of the Constitution.

C. Even if the criminal facts of this case are acknowledged against the Defendants, in light of the fact that the Defendants are against their own criminal acts, and the Defendants’ dismissal from their family members and are under way of uneasiness, uneasiness, depression, and depression, etc., the sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) A determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is made in a crime of adultery, the contents of which are the statements between men and women, and it is difficult to expect the existence of direct physical evidence between the parties, because it is conducted under a situation in which it is hard to expect the existence of a secret or external evidence. Thus, it is recognized that there is a comprehensive probative value of a crime by taking into account all the indirect evidence about the circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997). 2) If the court below duly adopted and investigated the evidence and the following circumstances recognized by the defendants' respective statements in the trial, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendants had sexual intercourse at the time and place stated in the facts charged, so the above assertion by the defendants is groundless.

① From August 2008, Defendant A came to know of Defendant B at the time of engaging in the telecoming business.

However, the defendant A's spouse becomes aware of the defendants' remaining son.