logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2009.08.20 2009노257
간통
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendants filed a complaint in this case since 2005 where the marital relationship with Defendant A and his spouse D (hereinafter “the complainant”) had already been in a state of failure, and the complainants paid attention to the Defendants. In 2008, the complainants knew of the Defendants’ conduct of the instant adultery at early October 2008, but they filed a complaint in around October 2008. The indictment in this case was based on an unlawful complaint.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the parties to a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles have no intention to continue the marriage and there exists a mutual agreement with the intention of divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, the declaration of intention equivalent to the use of the paper, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be deemed to be included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such agreement, even if the intention of divorce is expressed by both parties on a temporary and temporary basis, it does not constitute a case of inter-con

In addition, even though there is no restriction on the method as it may be explicitly and explicitly, it is not possible to recognize a certain behavior or expression of intent expressing an appraisal as an oil, first, it should be voluntarily made with the clear knowledge of the existence of the spouse, second, it should be expressed in a way that the true will to continue the marriage is obvious and reliable, regardless of such communication.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977, Nov. 27, 2008). Meanwhile, the main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is six months from the date on which the offender becomes aware of a crime subject to victim’s complaint.

arrow