A. The legal nature of the adultery and the application of the theory of indication on it (negative)

(b) the method and requirements of correspondence.

(c) The case holding that the phrase “a confessions made in the Yellow Sea” alone does not fall under the relics;

A. The rationale leading up to Article 241(2) of the Criminal Code is the ex post facto statement as stipulated in Article 841 of the Civil Code. As such, one spouse’s act is one of the parties who, with the knowledge of the other party’s adultery, waives malicious sentiment with the intention to continue the marriage and does not hold the other party liable for the act. The purport of the above Article is to respect the good will of the other party to use a simple spouse, give legal effect to the other party, and protect the stability of the marital life by preventing the smooth resolution of the marriage relationship. Thus, in determining whether there is a good faith, as in other family law relations, the true intent of the party should be absolutely respected, and the theory of indication that mainly applies to property law shall not be applied in order to protect the other party’s good faith and ensure the safety and prompt growth of the transaction.

B. Although there is no restriction as to what behavior or expression of intent that expresses an appraisal is recognized as a document, the first spouse’s communication must be voluntarily made with the clear knowledge of the inter-party relationship, and second, regardless of such correspondence, it is difficult to recognize that the expression or expression of a letter of intent, which is a mere external area, should be expressed in a way that the true intent to continue a matrimonial relationship is apparent and trustable. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the promise was made solely on the sole basis of an expression or expression of a letter of intent.

(c) The case holding that it is difficult to view that the simple expression of the spouse's objective expression of intention, that is, the phrase "a confessions made in the lusium," alone, constitutes a lusium.

(b)Article 241(2)(a) of the Criminal Code; Article 841 of the Civil Code;

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No2257 delivered on July 5, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul Criminal Court.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 expressed their intent to be subject to punishment under the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the fact that Defendant 1’s wishes to be subject to punishment, Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 did not appear objectively to be subject to punishment, on the following grounds: (a) Defendant 1 knew that Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 were able to use the liver, and reported to the police and arrested the Defendants; and (b) at the time, Defendant 2 knew that Defendant 2 had sexual intercourse with Defendant 2 with the police; and (c) at the time, Defendant 1 received the above documents and sent them to the complainant; and (d) Defendant 2 had the intent to be punished under the proviso of the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the fact that Defendant 1 had no intention to be punished under the proviso of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. According to Article 241(2) of the Criminal Act, the crime of adultery shall be prosecuted only upon the complaint of the spouse, but it shall not be accused of a complaint if the spouse gets booms or booms the adultery. Article 229 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint may not be filed unless marriage is annulled or divorce lawsuit is instituted in the case of a crime of adultery. Article 229(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint shall be deemed to have been withdrawn in the case of a marriage again or divorce lawsuit is withdrawn. Article 840 of the Civil Act provides that a case where an illegal act was committed by the spouse under subparagraph 1 of Article 840 of the same Act shall be one of the causes of judicial divorce. Article 841 of the same Act provides that the other spouse shall not file a claim for divorce if the other spouse consented in advance or made an ex

In full view of the above provisions of the Criminal Act, the following facts are identical to the ex post facto statement as stipulated in Article 841 of the Civil Act. As such, one spouse's refusal to give up his/her bad faith with the other spouse's awareness of the other party's common knowledge of the existence of a marital relationship and expressed his/her intention not to be responsible for the other party's act. The purport of the law that provides for the grounds for extinguishment of the right to file a complaint or the right to claim a divorce is to respect the other party's good will in favor of the other party's good will, thereby giving the legal effect to the other party's will and to protect the stability of the marital life by preventing the smooth resolution of a marital relationship. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the true intent of the parties should be respected, as in other family law relations, as in determining whether a written statement was delivered.

In this case, the court below held that, inasmuch as the complainant expresses his intention to make an objective statement and Defendant 1 believed that it is true, it constitutes the case where the complainant 1 has made a mistake in writing. However, it is difficult to apply to the interpretation of the theory of the indication principle which mainly applies to the external appearance of the act, in order to protect the other party in good faith and promote the safety and speed of transaction, and to interpret the intention of the parties as to whether the marital relationship should continue, such as this case, with the intention of the parties as to whether the confession made by Defendant 1 with the wrong belief that Defendant 1 is admissible as evidence of guilt, or the probative value of the confession is certain degree.

3. In addition, it is not easy to explicitly or explicitly state that there is a restriction on the method, but in order to recognize what behavior or intention to express an appraisal as a note, the first spouse's expression should be voluntarily made with the clear and reliable knowledge of the inter-party relationship, and second, in order to continue the marriage despite the fact of the inter-party relationship, it should be expressed in a way that the true will to continue the marriage is obvious and reliable. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the expression of the appearance (e.g., "I will not want to see, but it would not want again) or a letter, which is a simple external area.

However, in the case of this case, in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to view that the complainant's expression of objective expression of intention by the complainant, that is, the phrase "a confessions made by the complainant" constitutes a case where the complainant's statement of intention is made by the complainant. The reasons are as follows.

First, it is doubtful whether the complainant made the above declaration of intent with the knowledge of the defendants' correspondence. In light of our experience, it is common to believe that even if there is such doubt as to conduct the other party's communication or unlawful act in the case of the couple's husband and wife, it would not be believed that the other party has reached the highest situation. Thus, even if the defendants were arrested in the way of arrest, if all the defendants suffered clothes at the time, and the facts of the correspondence continued to be fully denied, it is difficult to conclude that the complainant who requested the confession had already made the above declaration of intention with the knowledge of the fact of correspondence before preparing the document that approved the correspondence by the defendant 1.

Then, it is difficult to view that the complainant expressed his/her intent to melt the appraisal and continue the marriage in a clear and reliable manner. This is because the phrase “a confession made in a false and reliable manner” cannot be deemed to have taken the part in a simple and reliable manner, but it is reasonable to deem that it was merely an expression of an intention to make a confession with the statement of a confession.

4. If so, the court below cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to statements in the crime of adultery, and it is clear that such unlawful act committed by the court below has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a ground to challenge this point. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)