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

1. Defendant A is a person who has completed a marriage report with D on March 4, 1991.

On August 3, 2013, at around 2:00, the Defendant sent the Felel 402 located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E with one sexual intercourse with B.

2. Defendant B was aware of the fact that he was a spouse of the above A, and at the same time and place as in the preceding paragraph, the said female was sexual intercourse once with the said female.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Marriage relation certificate and copy of resident registration;

1. Details of video CDs, photographs (investigative records 32 pages), and telephone records;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (a copy of the investigation report (the confirmation of continuance of a divorce lawsuit and the complaint for a related case);

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. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel as to the suspended sentence (the fact that the marriage relationship between D and the Defendant A was actually broken down at the time of the commission of the crime) under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that all the Defendants did not have any record of criminal punishment except for one fine, and there are social discussions as to the unconstitutionality or abolition of the crime of adultery)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A filed a divorce lawsuit against D prior to the occurrence of the instant case, and there was a difference in the opinion on consolation money and division of property, etc. in the said lawsuit, and each of them clearly stated his intention of divorce, so there was a mutual agreement between the intention of divorce corresponding to the end of the judgment.

B. Defendant A, who was involved in the above her motherel at the time of criminal facts, had approximately her head, and Defendant B had approximately her head, and the her head was her head, and the Defendants did not have any sexual intercourse.

2. Determination

A. Whether there was an expression of intent for the inter-party marriage is more marital than the parties to the marriage.