The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the complainant have already agreed on divorce around January 2008, which was prior to the occurrence of the instant case, and since this constitutes a case where the spouse scamblings the adultery, the lower court convicted the Defendant even though it was sentenced to the dismissal of prosecution as to the facts charged in the instant case, and the lower court erred by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In light of the above legal principles, if the parties to the marriage have no intention to continue the marriage and there is a mutual agreement with the intention of divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, an expression of intent corresponding to the agreement, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be deemed as included in the agreement. In the absence of such agreement, even if the intention of divorce is expressed by both parties provisionally, temporarily, temporarily, and on a condition, it does not constitute a case of inter-conception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do868, Jul. 7, 2000). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the complainant appears to have aggravated the relationship between the defendant and the complainant by changing the password of the monthly passbook around Jan. 208 and managing the household, but the complainant, who had been living together with the defendant, was regularly refused by the consultation and consultation about the defendant around 10, 2008.