A. Defendant A is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with C on June 5, 1988.

(1) On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with B in a room where the head office of “Eel” located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D could not be known.

(2) Around April 2013, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with the above room in which it is impossible to find out the trade name in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Governmentcheon-dong.

(3) On May 2013, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the above B at the private house where it is impossible to identify the trade name near the one-section of the Dogsan-si, Dogsan-si, Namwon-si, Namwon-si.

(4) On October 2013, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the above B in a room where it is impossible to find out the trade name in the Daegu Terminal near the Defendant’s Daegu Terminal.

(5) On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the above B in a room where it is impossible to find out the trade name in the Daegu Terminal near the said terminal.

(6) On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) the dateless holidayed.

In a room where it is impossible to find out the defense room of the “Eel” described in the paragraph, the above B and the first sexual intercourse was made.

(7) On March 2014, in a room where it is impossible to find out the trade name in the Daegu Terminal near the Defendant’s Daegu Terminal, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B once at the room where it is impossible to find out the trade name in which it is unknown.

(8) The Defendant: (a) on March 201, 201, near the date.

In a room where it is impossible to find out the defense room of the “Eel” described in the paragraph, the above B and the first sexual intercourse was made.

Accordingly, the defendant was sent to the above B over eight times.

B. Defendant B knew that the above spouse was a person who was a spouse, and even at each time and place described in the paragraph (a), the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A eight times as above, respectively.

2. Each of the above facts charged against the Defendants dismissing public prosecution is a crime falling under Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon the complaint of the spouse under Article 241(2) of the Criminal Act.

However, after the prosecution of this case, Defendant A’s spouse C expressed his intention to revoke the complaint against the Defendants.