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

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with F on May 30, 2009. A

On July 22, 2012, the Defendant, at around 22:0, went through a room in which it is impossible to know the heading of the Hmototo G in Guri-si, G, with a single sexual intercourse.

B. On July 22, 2012, around 22:00, the Defendant sent to the room where the head of the above Helel could not be known, with sexual intercourse with the above B once.

C. On July 22, 2012, at the end of 22:00, the Defendant, at a room where the head of the above Hel’s room cannot be known, sent to the Defendant a single sexual intercourse with the above B. D.

On July 22, 2012, around the end of 22:00, the Defendant sent to the room in which it is impossible to know the heading of the above Hel with the above B one-time sexual intercourse.

E. On August 22, 2012, around 22:00, the Defendant sent to the room where the head of the above Helel could not be known, with sexual intercourse with the above B once.

F. On August 22, 2012, around 22:00, the Defendant sent to the room where it is impossible to know the head of the above Hel, with sexual intercourse with the above B once.

G. On August 14, 2012, around 22:00, the Defendant sent to Korea with the first sexual intercourse with the said I, 403.

According to F’s statement, since F at the time seems to have failed to clearly recognize the transit facts, it is difficult to accept the allegation that the period of filing a complaint for this part of the facts charged has elapsed.

H. On September 2012, the Defendant met with the studio 404 in the Guri-siJ around 2012, which was one time with the above B.

B. On September 1, 2012, the Defendant sent a studio 404, which is located in the J of Guri-si, to the instant B and the instant B once.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, and even at each time, at each of the above time and place of the matters set forth in A and nine times sexual intercourses with A, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution and police statement concerning F;

1. Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.