However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year.

1. Defendant A was a person who was a spouse on May 22, 200 after filing a marriage report with C. A. A.

On May 2013, the Defendant sent to the police station B with sexual intercourses with B in the E pension room located in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun.

B. At the end of August 2013, the Defendant sent to the front port of the Yangyang-gun of the Gangseoyang-gun, one-time sexual intercourse with B at the Mourel room where it is difficult to find out the trade name near the Nakdongsan-gun of the Hanyang-gun.

C. On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant, at a Mado-Eup Mado-Eup Mado-si, who was unable to know the trade name in the Namyang-do-si, Namyang-do-si, the Defendant sent to the Defendant with sexual intercourse with B once.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, and even at the time, time, place, and place specified in paragraph (1)(b) above, the Defendant had sexual intercourses with A twice respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement of C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each complaint, written confirmation, and marriage certificate;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act concerning the crime: The first sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act: The second sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The confessions made by the defendants during the period of suspended execution under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act against the reasons for sentencing, and the fact that the defendants maintain their normal marital life after completing the marriage report.