However, each of the above penalties shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

B is a person who has a spouse who completed the marriage report with D on December 26, 1990.

1. Defendant B

A. At the end of February, 2013, the Defendant sent a sexual intercourse with A from 401 to 401 of the building E in Busan City, the end of February.

B. On March 2013, the Defendant sent a single sexual intercourse with the said A at the same place as in the foregoing paragraph prior to the date of incompetence.

C. On March 2013, the Defendant respondedd to the foregoing A and once at the same place as in the foregoing paragraph before and after the date.

On April 2013, the Defendant respondedd with the above A at the same place as the date in the preceding paragraph.

E. On April 2013, the Defendant sent a single sexual intercourse with the said A at the same place as in the foregoing paragraph prior to the date of instigious.

F. On May 2013, the Defendant 403, the building E-gu Busan, Busan, was sent to the Defendant for the first time with the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was sent to the above A more than six times.

2. Defendant A was aware that the above spouse B was a spouse, and the same date, time and place as that of the preceding paragraph, and six sexual intercourses with B, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on marriage relation certificates

1. Defendant A of pertinent legal provisions concerning criminal facts: The latter part of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act; the former part 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 Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (the defendants recognized the crime of this case, and the defendants have no criminal power) is above the above.