[1] The method and requirement of the correspondence

[2] The case holding that where a written agreement is received from the other party to the agreement that the other party will no longer satisfy the other party's spouse after the other party's knowledge of the other party's adultery, it constitutes a certificate of adultery

[1] In relation to a crime of adultery, one-way act indicating the other party's intention to renounce a bad faith and not to hold the other party liable for such an act with the knowledge of the other party's common knowledge of the inter-party's common relation. The common relation between the two-party's common relation is not limited because it can be explicitly or implicitly, but it is not easy to limit the method. However, in order to recognize a certain behavior or expression of intention to express an appraisal as a common relation, first one must be voluntarily performed with the awareness of the inter-party's common relation, and second, regardless of such common relation, it should be expressed in such a way that the true intention to continue the marriage is clear and trustable.

[2] The case holding that where a written agreement is received from the other party to the agreement that the other party will no longer satisfy the other party's spouse after knowing the other party's adultery, it constitutes a certificate of adultery

[1] Article 241 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 241 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do826 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 366), Supreme Court Decision 99Do826 delivered on May 14, 199 (Gong199Sang, 124)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 99No1124 delivered on April 30, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the crime of adultery, one-party act expressing his/her intention to waive a bad faith with the other party's knowledge of the other party's communication and not to hold the other party liable for such an act. Although there is no restriction on the method, it may not be explicitly or explicitly, but in order to recognize a certain behavior or expression of opinion that expresses the other party's communication, the first spouse's communication should be voluntarily performed with the awareness of the other party's communication, and the second, regardless of the other party's communication, it should be expressed in such a way that the true will to continue the marriage is obvious and reliable (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2409 delivered on November 26, 191).

In light of the facts established by the court below and records, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were aware of the above facts on February 6, 197 with Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 were no longer than 7, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were no longer likely to have had a notarial relation with Defendant 1 and his family members on March 4, 197, and Defendant 2 had a notarial relation with Defendant 9 and no longer had a notarial relation with Defendant 2 with Defendant 1, who had no notarial relation with Defendant 1 and had a notarial relation with Defendant 2. The notarial relation with Defendant 1 were no longer known to Defendant 7, and Defendant 1 had a notarial relation with Defendant 2, who had no notarial relation with Defendant 1 and had no notarial relation with Defendant 3. It was doubtful that Defendant 2 would have been able to use the notarial relation with Defendant 1 and his family members on the ground that Defendant 1 had no notarial relation with Defendant 2.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)