Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on December 2, 2010.

On September 10, 2011, the Defendant sent to the B with the Ftel 501, B, and once, residing in Yongsan-gu, Youngyang-si E.

2. Defendant B, while being aware that the above Defendant was a spouse of the above A, had sexual intercourse with A once with the above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and G;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A complaint;

1. The National Institute of Scientific Investigation for Information Request;

1. The certificate of receipt of the lawsuit;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act concerning the crime: The first sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act: the second sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the defendants)

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel: ① the end of June 201 to the same year.

7. At the beginning, there was an agreement on divorce between Defendant A and D, and ② At the time of criminal facts, the defendants asserts that there was no sexual intercourse between the defendants and the defendant.

2. First of all, in a case where the parties to the marriage have no intention to continue the marriage and there exists a mutual agreement with the intention to divorce, even if the marital relationship remains legally, an expression of intent corresponding to the end of the agreement, which is the prior consent to the adultery, shall be included in the agreement. However, in the absence of such agreement, even if the intention to divorce is expressed by both parties on a provisional and interim basis, it does not constitute the case of the simple use. In this case, even if the intention to divorce is expressed by both parties, it is stated that D did not have agreed to divorce, and that D has confirmed that the defendant was in the vicinity of the office of the defendant B’s officetel, and even after August 201, it is possible to confirm that the defendant A remains there several times prior to the date on which the crime was entered.