However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A was a spouse who completed a marriage report with D on December 31, 2004, and around 22:00 on June 16, 2009, Defendant A conspired with B and 53 occasions between B and 53 times from that time to October 26, 2009, as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Form, in a room where it is impossible to find out the heading room of the Felel E located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21504, Jun. 16, 2009>

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A over 53 times at the same date, time, and place as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. Some statements concerning the suspect interrogation protocol concerning the defendant B;

1. A complaint;

1. Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion on the currency content, credit card use statement, Defendant B, and their defense counsel’s assertion. Defendant B and their defense counsel asserted that there was no fact between Defendant B and Defendant A at the date and place indicated in the facts charged

In the case of a crime of adultery, the act is conducted under the circumstances in which it is difficult to expect the existence of a direct physical evidence or witness, since the act is conducted under the circumstances in which the party is confidential or outside, and therefore it is difficult to expect the existence of a witness. Thus, it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value of the crime before and after the commission of the crime, and it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value of the crime.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977, Nov. 27, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, namely, Defendant A, after having known Defendant B to the investigation of the complainant, has consistently disclosed the communication with Defendant B, at the same time and place as the Defendant B and the facts charged, from the police to the court.