All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. As to Defendant B (1) mistake of facts on September 3, 2012, Defendant B did not have any sexual intercourse with Defendant A, and this part of the facts charged is not guilty. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

B. On September 19, 2012, the Prosecutor (Definites) may be fully convicted in full view of the complainant’s statement and the situation at the time of the entry.

2. Determination

A. The court below found Defendant B guilty on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts as to Defendant B’s grounds for appeal. The court below found Defendant B guilty on the grounds that the Defendants had a new wall from September 2, 2012 to the following day, on September 5, 2012, on the grounds of conversations recorded on the black box of vehicles entering and leaving by Defendant A, and on September 3, 2012, the contents of conversations recorded on September 3, 2012. We agree with the above judgment of the court below, and it is just in light of a thorough review of the records and records. 2) Since there was no criminal offense against Defendant B. Since it was difficult to deem that the crime of this case was a cause for divorce since it was established after Defendant A’s marital life problems, the court below found that the period for continuing to commit the crime of this case has not been shorter than the period of divorce, notwithstanding the clear evidence produced by Defendant B, the court below did not unilaterally criticize Defendant A’s motive to commit the crime of this case and the entire criminal investigation agency’s motive, etc.

3) Accordingly, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit. (b) The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal 1) At the time when the complainant sought to the Defendant B’s new wall on September 19, 2012.