Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for one year, each of the defendants B.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the principal father of a person who has been a spouse after filing a marriage report with E on March 28, 1984, and the defendant B is the doctor.

1. On July 2012, Defendant A, at the guest room where it is impossible to identify the number of G’s housing units located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Defendant A, along with a single sexual intercourse with Defendant B, was sent to Defendant B on a total of 22 occasions, as indicated in the list of crimes, from August 20, 2009 to the first policeman on July 20, 2012.

2. Defendant B, at the same time, at the same place as indicated in the preceding paragraph, and even though he/she was aware that he/she was a spouse A, he/she had a sexual intercourse with A once, as seen above, and had a total of 22 times from August 20, 2009 to July 20, 2012, as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness A, E, and H;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Recording recording (A, B);

1. Details of each card use;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. The main sentence of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act of Defendant A

B. The latter part of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Code of Defendant B

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. On the other hand, Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) asserts that there was no fact that there was a crime between each of the crimes in this case, while the judgment on Defendant B’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “A”) was led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case. Thus, it is extremely difficult to find that Defendant B had a false fact with the husband, even though there was no fact that there was a woman who has a spouse’s relation with other males, it is extremely difficult to expect that there was a false fact with the husband, barring special circumstances.

In this regard, although A did not have access to Defendant B, it has been 22 times as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment in falsity to E, who is the husband.