2.Provided, That with respect to Defendant A, it shall be for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on February 10, 1992. A

On March 2010, the Defendant attended B and once with the E-car within the forest-speed B in the Seodong-gu Busan National University, Seogdong-gu, Busan National University.

B. On March 2010, the Defendant sent B with B and once within the car of B in the Seocho-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

C. On March 2010, the Defendant was sexual intercourse B with B and once in an incompetuous in the vicinity of the death and injury terminal in Busan, the end of which is located.

On April 2010, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse from the incompetence of the Mascong Park in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, on the other hand.

In this respect, the defendant was sent to B and each other over four times.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse, and even at the same time and place as that of paragraph (1), the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A four times as above, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Certification personnel of the divorce lawsuit;

1. Application of the marriage relation certificate and the Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Defendants who aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of suspended sentence: Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the term of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months)

1. Defendant B received a written explanation from Defendant A to the effect that the complainant knew of the Defendants’ communication, and then accepted a written explanation from Defendant A to the point of view of converging the communication from Defendant A around May 2010. Also, Defendant B continued to live together even though the conciliation of the divorce between the complainant and the Defendant was established in a divorce lawsuit between the complainant and the Defendant. As such, the complainant had already been living together.