However, the execution of the above punishment for two years 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 December 21, 2007. A

around May 2013, the Defendant sent to the Defendant with B one-time sexual intercourse in any Moter guest room located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Suwon-gu.

B. Around June 2013, the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with B in any her mother room located in the Seoul Northern-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with B once.

C. Around July 2013, the Defendant, at any mother’s room located in the U.S. children of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sent to the Defendant with B once sexual intercourse.

On August 23, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Defendant with B and once sexual intercourse at any guest room located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

2. Defendant B, despite being aware that he was a spouse of Defendant A, had sexual intercourses with A three times as described in paragraphs 1(b), (c) and (d) above, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

2. Statement made by the police against D;

3. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of complaint, marriage certificate, and divorce receipt certificate;

1. Defendant A of the relevant 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;

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

3. The Defendants in the suspended sentence: (a) the Defendants’ reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act recognized the instant facts charged; (b) Defendant A did not have any record of committing any crime so far; and (c) concluded disputes, such as expenses for raising divorce property division and childcare through the decision to recommend reconciliation with D after the instant case; and (d) Defendant B supported the primary offender and his married couple; and (c) further, the sentencing data indicated in the pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment, were taken into account.