1. Defendant A who completed the marriage report with D on February 19, 2003, and Defendant B

(a) around 02:00 on October 2, 201, at the multilateral studio of F main points operated by the suspect of the 1st floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, one-time sexual intercourse;

(b)on October 2, 201, sexual intercourse at the mutually incompetence located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G on one occasion;

C. Around October 16, 2011, at a room where it is impossible to identify the family room of the Iel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, one time, and

D. On October 22, 2011, at the lower end of the Jinna car owned by the Defendant, with a single sexual intercourse at the end of the Jinna car;

(e)on November 1, 201, two times from the back of the rocketing passenger car at the end of the said rocketing passenger car;

F. At around 02:00 on December 25, 201, 201, from the back end of the rocketing car one time,

G. Around 02:00 on January 1, 2012 at L hotels located in K in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on one occasion;

H. At around 14:00 on July 17, 2012, at a room where it is impossible to find out the care room of the NMoel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M, one time, and

I. At around 15:00, around September 14, 2012, the Nel No. 705 was sent once to sexual intercourse.

Accordingly, the defendant was sent to the above B more than 10 times.

2. Around November 28, 2011, Defendant B was aware of the fact that he is a person who is a spouse of the above A, but was sexual intercourse with the above A four times respectively at the time, date, time, and place of paragraph (1) (f), (g), and (i).

However, the facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act, and public prosecution can be instituted only upon the complaint of the spouse pursuant to the main sentence of Article 241 (2) of the Criminal Act.

However, since the complainant D cancelled the complaint against the Defendants after the indictment of this case, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.