The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendants by misapprehending the facts, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though each of the evidence submitted by the lower court alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants had passed through the prosecution, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Since there was a failure of marriage between Defendant A and his spouse D after December 28, 2008 due to the failure of marriage between Defendant A and his spouse D and the intention of divorce, D expressed its intention of use, which is the prior consent to the adultery of this case, so the complaint of this case is unlawful, and therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendants is erroneous, in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of this case’s sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants (each of four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 320 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of adultery between men and women regarding the assertion of mistake of facts is committed under the extreme liveness between the parties in light of the nature of the act, or under the circumstances where it is difficult to identify from the outside, and thus, it is extremely difficult to expect the existence of a direct physical evidence or witness.

As such, if it can be found that there was a crime in light of the empirical rule by comprehensively taking account of all indirect evidence about the circumstances before and after the crime, it should be found guilty.

I would like to say.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the complainant D was under the simplified site of the Defendants. On the day of the instant case, the Defendants 20:00 on the day of the instant case, after getting around A’s residence at around 20:00, Defendant B entered the studio first, Defendant A appeared to enter the studio after delivery of alcohol and alcohol at Schlage, and ② D was under the same day on the same day.