However, it is against the Defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with C on June 7, 1997. A.

On March 31, 2014, at around 17:00, the Defendant sent a large range of 17:0 to B and a large number of 1:0 from a mutually influoral room in the vicinity of the Seogu Seo-gu Seollllal Dollllal.

B. On April 1, 2014, at around 23:00, the Defendant sent to the instant B one-time interchange from a mutual influence room in the vicinity of the Seogu Seo-gu Seollllllal Dollllal Dollal.

C. On April 2, 2014, around 14:00, the Defendant sent to the instant B one-time interchange from the luxary room of the mutual influence in the vicinity of the Seogu Seo-gu Seollllllal Dollllal.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, and even at the date, time, time, and place of paragraph (1)(b)(c) as mentioned above, the Defendant sent 3 times sexual intercourse with A respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement of C;

1. A complaint;

1. Marriage relation certificate:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording notes;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

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

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B of the community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;