However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who has married with Nonindicted Party D on June 21, 1999.

1. Defendant A, around 00:30 on April 18, 2014, 200:30, via a single comparison with the upper Defendant at the Seoyang-gu E Mel 305 room located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu E;

2. The above B, even though the above defendant was aware that he had a spouse, was sent to the above defendant at the same time and at the same place as the above in the preceding paragraph, the above defendant was sent to the above defendant once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Investigation report (execution report of permission for communications); and

1. An investigation report (faging out of the main screen of a video CD);

1. A complaint, a certificate of receipt, and a certificate;

1. Investigation report (Refusal of collection of liquid liquids A by a suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written request for appraisal, written request for appraisal, or written appraisal;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: the first sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: the latter part of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants on probation: the Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that they did not act as a sexual intercourse.

In the case of a crime of adultery between men and women, it is difficult to expect the existence of direct physical evidence or witness because the act is conducted under the circumstances in which it is difficult to identify from the outside or secret between the parties.

Therefore, if facts constituting an offense are found to have been established by comprehensively taking account of all the indirect evidence concerning the circumstances before and after the commission of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977, Nov. 27, 2008). According to the records of this case, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not act as a sexual intercourse from the investigative agency, but the statements regarding the specific gender and attitudes among the Defendants are inconsistent and inconsistent with each other. In particular, the Defendants stated that they committed a self-defense act by Defendant B before presenting an appraisal document (No. 15 of the evidence list).