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

1. Defendant A is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with C on August 25, 1982;

(a) communicate with B one-time sexual intercourse in a room in which it is not possible to find out the heading of the EMel D around October 3, 2012;

B. Around October 6, 2012, a single sexual intercourse with B at the same place as above; and

C. Around October 10, 2012, the call room of the telecom with B and once in a room in which it is impossible to find out the room of the telecome in the family-si transfer-based;

D. Around October 15, 2012, the care room of the Gel in Macheon-si F was livered with B one-time sexual intercourse in a room where it is impossible to find out the care room of the Gel.

2. Defendant B knew that he is a spouse of A, Defendant B had sexual intercourse with A four times, as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the warden receipt certificate center;

1. Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the fact that the defendant is against his/her will);