However, as to the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the defendants are above.

1. Defendant A is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with E on May 23, 1998.

At around 18:00 on February 1, 2013, the Defendant sent to B with a single sexual intercourse from a numberless room of Gpenta, located in F, Sinju City.

2. Defendant B was aware that he was a spouse, and the date and place specified in paragraph (1) above was sexual intercourse with A once at the same time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statement to the effect that the defendants recognize the facts stated in the indictment in this Court

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Marriage relation certificate (No. 6 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. An appraisal report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: the first sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: the latter part of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

1. On June 20, 2012, the Defendants’ defense counsel filed a divorce lawsuit against E, who is the spouse, on June 20, 2012, with respect to the claim of the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (including the fact that the Defendants’ mistakes are divided, and the Defendants are the primary offenders). The Defendants’ defense counsel asserted that the case constitutes a case where there was a simple tolerance since the Defendants’ defense counsel filed a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant A on June 27, 2012 prior to the filing of the said divorce lawsuit.

If the parties to a marriage do not intend to continue a matrimonial relationship and the parties agree with the intention of divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, the declaration of intention corresponding to the end of the agreement, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be deemed to be included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such agreement, even if the intention of divorce is expressed by both parties on a provisional, temporary, and conditional basis, it does not constitute the case of inter-livering use.