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 October 25, 1987.

On October 2009, the defendant was sent to the defendant's house located in Busan Northern-gu E, and the defendant was sent to B and once with sexual intercourse.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, and even at the time and place prescribed in paragraph (1), the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A once as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants (including D’s statement protocol)

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Investigation report (for telephone conversations with the owner of house and telephone communications);

1. Police seizure records;

1. Requests for appraisal;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, Apr. 1, 2007)

1. First of all, the Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that the date and time of the instant facts charged are not specified, so the judgment dismissing the prosecution should be pronounced.

However, it is desirable to clearly specify the facts possible, such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime, inasmuch as the facts charged are required to limit the object of a trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. However, as long as it is necessary, it may cause interference with the institution and maintenance of a public prosecution, the date and time of a crime is to the extent that it does not conflict with the time of double prosecution or prescription, and the place is to the extent that it can measure territorial jurisdiction.