Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year.

Punishment of the crime

1. From January 2012 to October 24, 2012, Defendant A, despite being aware that he/she was a spouse B in a telecom inciting the right-holder at Suwon-si, he/she had sexual intercourse with B once with B, and had sexual intercourse over a total of 126 times from January 2012 to October 24, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

2. Defendant B is a person who has a spouse who completed a marriage report with D on December 27, 2006.

On January 2012, the Defendant sent a total of 126 times from January 2012 to October 24, 2012, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as well as a one-time sexual intercourse with A, in an unfolding telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and D;

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

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

1. The portion of dismissing the prosecution in accordance with Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., reflects the fact that the defendant B is the first offender, and the defendant A has no record of being punished for a heavier punishment than the suspended sentence);

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with E on March 23, 2000.

Around January 2012, the Defendant sent a total of 126 times from January 2012 to October 24, 2012, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as well as a one-time sexual intercourse with B and one-time sexual intercourse in a telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing telecomcing.

B. Around January 2012, Defendant B, even though he was aware that he was a spouse of A inciting the right holder at Suwon-si, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A once with A, and had sexual intercourse over a total of 126 times from January 2012 to October 24, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

2. The grounds for the dismissal of prosecution are as follows: Article 241(1) and the main sentence of Article 241(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 327 Subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act; and Article 327 Subparag. 20, Dec. 2