Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with C on December 19, 197. A.

On January 11, 2014, the Defendant, at the non-fluorian guest room in Jeju-si, B, one time of sexual intercourse in the non-fluorian guest room.

B. In February 2014, the Defendant used Maz Motor Vehicles (D) set up on the coast roads located in the 1st century at the time of Jeju Island, which was sent to the Defendant, one-time sexual intercourse with B.

C. At the end of March, 2014, the Defendant, set up on the coast roads located in the Yongsan-dong at the end of March, 2014, with B one-time sexual intercourses with B in the spectrum car (E).

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement by the prosecution against C;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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. Suspension of execution (the defendants): The sentence shall be imposed in consideration of all the following circumstances with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the sentencing conditions specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the reason for sentencing below). favorable circumstances: The Defendants are against the recognition of crimes; Defendant A and his spouse filed an application for confirmation of divorce by agreement around October 2013, which is the transfer of the instant crime; Defendant A had no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine imposed four times by interference with business, etc. by up to 2011; Defendant B had no record of criminal punishment; Defendant B had no record of criminal punishment; Defendant B had a relation of duty at the same workplace; Defendant B had a sexual intercourse with his image and stored it up to two; Defendant A had the record of having been sentenced to a fine four times by interference with business, etc. by up to 2011: the age, age, and age of the Defendants.