However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

1. Defendant A was a person who was a spouse after filing a marriage report with E on December 1, 1995. At around 22:40 on Jan. 15, 2010, Defendant A and the first floor of Gamoto who was in the Gamoto F was sexual intercourse with B in a room where it is impossible to know about the first floor of Gamoto.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse, and even at the same time and place as above, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A once, as seen above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. On-site photographs;

1. A criminal investigation report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing requests for appraisal;

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

1. Defendants on probation: The portion not guilty under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the first offender or the fact that there was no record of punishment other than once a fine)

1. Defendant A was a person who was a spouse after filing a marriage report with E on December 1, 1995. A around the end of December 2009, Defendant A had a single sexual intercourse with B in a room where it is impossible to know the family room of the IMoel located in H in Gwangju-si. Defendant B had a spouse, and Defendant B had a single sexual intercourse with A at the above time and at the above place, even though he was aware that he was a spouse.

2. In full view of all the evidence presented by the prosecution and its conclusion, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants committed sexual intercourse as stated in the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime and thereby, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the