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

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on June 1, 2004. A

On May 28, 2009, the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with B at the Defendant’s home located in the Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do.

B. The Defendant around May 31, 2009

At the defendant's office, such as the paragraph, B and once sexual intercourses with B.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, and even at the time and place of the above 1. Paragraph (1) above, the Defendant had sexual intercourses with A twice as above, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each statement made by the defendant A or D in the police interrogation protocol (2, 2, 3) of the defendant A or D;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D (Supplementary to Complaints);

1. Each police statement made to D (the second and third statements);

1. A complaint;

1. A report on investigation (temporary correction);

1. Each family relation certificate, Messenting content, reception certificate, written opinion - Messenic photo;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning photographs, submission of evidentiary materials, four copies of photographic pictures, and photograph-powered screen pictures;

1. Defendant A of the relevant criminal facts: Defendant B of the main sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act (commencing point): the latter part of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act and the full text (commencing point); and

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

3. The Defendants and Defendant B’s defense counsel on the assertion of the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution (the Defendants and Defendant B’s defense counsel) alleged that the instant complaint was filed more than six months since the complainant knew of the adultery around the beginning of June 2009. As such, the said complaint was filed subsequent to the expiration of the period for filing the complaint, and thus, the instant public prosecution also constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure is invalid in violation of the statutory provisions. However, according to each of the above evidence, D must be around September 2009 by the complainant.