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

Defendant

A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with L on May 26, 1991.

1. A around December 26, 2009, Defendant A, along with the fact that, during the period of Ansan-si, Defendant A had sexual intercoursed with Defendant B in a single sexual intercourse with Defendant B, and had a total of 14 times from that time to October 10, 2013, i.e., the same method as indicated in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

2. Defendant B, despite being aware that he is a spouse of Defendant A, had sexual intercourses at the time, place, as described in paragraph (1), as well as once sexual intercourses from that time to October 10, 2013 in a total of 14 times from that time, with the foregoing method as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement, Defendant B’s partial legal statement

1. A suspect interrogation protocol concerning B by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning L;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol about A and B;

1. Investigation reports (attached to a list of 112 reported cases);

1. A list of transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on card use;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent 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;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, each suspended sentence, as follows;

1. The Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion regarding Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act, and Article 62-2(1) of the same Act, and the Defendant and his/her defense counsel acknowledged the facts of sexual intercourse as indicated in the Defendant A and the attached Table No. 10-14. However, even if the relationship was terminated after they transferred to Defendant A and the money issues around September 2012, it was not terminated by Defendant A’s intimidation or assault, such as spreading the video images recorded on his/her sexual intercourse with his/her husband to his/her husband.