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

Defendant

B is a third-party relationship of Defendant A, who is a relative of one another, and Defendant A is a spouse who has completed a marriage report on December 1, 1995.

1. Defendant A

A. On April 23, 2013, the Defendant sent to the B with sexual intercourses with B one time in the Buddhist land of North Korea and north-gu E.

B. Around June 13, 2013, the Defendant sent to the G apartment located in the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, G apartment house No. 319 Dong 504, B with a single sexual intercourse.

2. Defendant B

A. The defendant knew that he was a spouse of the above A, one of the above A.

at the same time, place, such as subsection 1(a).

As stated in paragraph A, I and I were sexually disturbed.

B. The defendant knew that he was a spouse of the above A, the above 1-B.

at the same date, time, and at the same place as the paragraph 1-B.

As stated in paragraph A, I and I were sexually disturbed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning D and H;

1. Each record CD or each record;

1. Multimedia (A’s mobile phone restoration photographs and sexual images of deleted files);

1. Notification of communication confirmation;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that there is no gap between the Defendants and the defense counsel's assertion on the marriage relation certificate (D, A), the date and place of each criminal facts stated.

In the case of the crime of adultery between men and women, since the act is conducted under a confidential or difficult condition between the parties in ordinary, and therefore it is difficult to expect direct physical evidence or witness existence, it is recognized that the crime is proven by comprehensively taking account of all kinds of indirect evidence about the circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977, Nov. 27, 2008). It is recognized that the crime was committed by the Defendants at the place where there is no person who knows that they are the defendants in a relationship of relatives, rather than by the external third village and the kina, and by the Defendant’s house on June 13, 2013.