except that the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with E around June 2007.

Defendant,

A. On March 29, 2014, at the “Gmoto” located in the “Gmoton City F, Y, B and once, and at H where the same day is located in the front of that day, sexual intercourses B and once;

B. On March 30, 2014, the first sexual intercourses with the said H on the following occasions.

In this respect, the defendant was sent to the 3rd sexual intercourse with B.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, and even at the same time and place as described in the above 1.3 times sexual intercourse with A, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A witness and E's legal statement;

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. According to the evidence of the record, on May 29, 2014, Defendant A prepared a written statement recognizing the cross-conception of Defendant B, his spouse, immediately after hearing the cross-conception of the cross-conception of the Defendant B, and thereafter, the prosecutor and this court consistently led to the confession that Defendant B had sexual intercourse three times with Defendant B, and the admissibility and reliability is recognized in light of the developments leading up to the confession, its contents and the degree of testimony, etc.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the witness I’s statement that Defendant B’s sexual intercourse statement was forced by E is not a direct confrontation with Defendant B, but a statement made while making a telephone conversation, not a recognition that Defendant B had sexual intercourse with Defendant A.

In addition, Defendant B’s defense counsel made a statement about E’s correspondence.

According to the records of this case, it is alleged that a complaint was filed on the premise of a divorce procedure or null and void, and upon the confirmation of the intention to divorce with Defendant A on October 20, 2014, E maintained the living together until November 2014 even after having reported the divorce, and even if having not entered into a property division agreement, it is deemed that there was a good faith, but in order to deem that there was a good faith, it is obvious and reliable that E would continue the marriage regardless of the correspondence.