[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is not guilty of the adultery around April 2013.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on April 13, 2011, is a person who has been a spouse of the deceased H and the spouse who has reported the marriage, and this fact is concealed to B; and

1. On or around September 18, 2012, one time to teach B in the office of Goyang-gu Itel in Goyang-gu, Mangsan-si;

2. Around September 2012, 201, the two days after the above date, the one-time sexual intercourses from B’s house around the lower end of September, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol concerning B by the prosecution;

1. Statement to J police officers;

1. Records of disciplinary actions against trainees and a statement of questions and answers;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. The main sentence of Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Determination as to the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion among concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant is not subject to the crime of adultery, in accordance with the proviso of Article 241(2) of the Criminal Act, since the victim was already dead.

2. Determination:

A. In relation to the crime of adultery, one-way act indicating that one-party spouse renounces his bad faith with the intention to continue a matrimonial relationship and is not responsible for the other party’s act with the knowledge of the other party’s communication, and the method may not be explicitly or implicitly restricted, as it does not include any restriction on the method. However, in order to recognize a certain behavior or intention to express an appraisal as an oil, the first spouse’s communication should be voluntarily performed with the awareness of the inter-party communication, and the second, regardless of such communication, the true intent to continue a matrimonial relationship should be expressed in such a way as to make it clear and trust.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10650 Decided December 23, 2010, etc.). B.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances shown in the record are examined.