In a case where a criminal defendant, who illegally withdrawn, was living together with the non-party and the criminal defendant files a criminal complaint for a crime of adultery, whether the criminal defendant can be deemed to have filed a criminal complaint for all adulterys from the time of the withdrawal to the time of his/her living together (affirmative)

In the case of complaint against adultery, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the complainant does not have to punish any criminal act during the period, unless the complainant specified the time and termination period, it shall be deemed that the complainant expressed his/her wish to punish all the criminal acts during that period, and it is reasonable to deem that the complainant has been specified to that it was specified to that extent. Thus, while the complainant found the defendant without permission on December 25, 1986, he/she was found to have been living with the non-party on July 9, 198, 23:00, while the complainant was found, it shall be deemed that the complainant was just to have discovered that the defendant was living with the non-party on July 9, 198, and that if the defendant's act was to be punished, it shall be deemed that the complaint was filed against all the prison acts between December 25, 198 and July 23:00, 198.

Article 229 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 241 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1704 decided Oct. 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1871) 84Do1374 decided Mar. 26, 1985 (Gong1985, 652) 85Do1213 decided Jul. 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 122), 87Do114 decided Oct. 25, 198 (Gong198, 1490)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No6788 delivered on December 20, 1989

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Southern Branch.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

Since the crime of adultery is established by each act of sexual intercourse, it is necessary to confirm which crime is sought for punishment of a criminal even though it is not necessary to specify the crime in detail, even though it is not necessary to specify the time, place, and method of the direct crime. The same is as determined by the court below.

However, since it is common that the contents of the crime cannot be known even if the defendant had committed the crime for non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 2's act, it shall be deemed that the complainant expressed his/her wish to punish all of the criminal acts during the period unless there are special circumstances to deem that the criminal acts during the period are not punishable, and it shall be reasonable to see that the defendant's act of non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 27's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 16's.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the charges of this case on the grounds that there is no legitimate complaint as to the charges of this case on the grounds as stated in its holding. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 393 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment and the first instance judgment are reversed, and the case is remanded to the first instance court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)