However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a spouse who was married with E on December 21, 2003 and completed a marriage report. A. The Defendant is a spouse who was married with E on December 21, 2003.

On July 4, 2012, around 18:30 on July 4, 2012, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with B in a room where it is impossible to find out the head of Gelan Nam-gu F.

B. On August 1, 2012, at around 18:30, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with B and once in a room where it is impossible to find out the family room inside the Gelan Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

C. On October 2012, 18:30 on the first day of October, 2012, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with B and once in a room where it is impossible to know the family room within the Gelannam-gu, Ulsan-gu. F.

On February 1, 2013, at around 18:30, the Defendant provided two sexual intercourses with B in a room where it is impossible to find out the head of Gel in Ulsan-gu F.

E. On April 10, 2013, around 18:30 on April 10, 2013, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse two times with B in a room where it is impossible to find out the room located in Ulsan Nam-gu F.

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

2. Defendant B was aware that the above spouse was a spouse, and the above time and place were sexual intercourses with A seven times as above, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Defendants’ statutory statement law

1. Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason that Article 62 (1) (including the fact that it is against the law) of the Criminal Act is in excess of the sentence;