beta
Text
All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
1. Defendant B is a person who has a spouse who completed a marriage report with D on April 19, 2007. A. The Defendant is a spouse.
From August 23, 2013 to August 25, 2013, the Defendant provided two sexual intercourses with A with the trade name in Pyeongtaek-gun in Gyeonggi-do.
B. From August 31, 2013 to September 1, 2013, the Defendant provided sexual intercourse with A two times with the mutual influence in the new town of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu.
C. From September 14, 2013 to September 15, 2013, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with A and once at the mutual influence in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon.
From October 5, 2013 to October 6, 2013, the Defendant sent a sexual intercourse with A and once with the trade name in Yangyang-gun in Gyeonggi-do.
E. From November 1, 2013 to November 3, 2013, the Defendant had sexual intercourses A and two times with Bosung-gun, even before the end of the period from November 1, 2013.
F. A around November 4, 2013, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with A and once at the Eteel located in the Incheon Chungcheongnam-dong, Incheon.
G. On November 9, 2013, the Defendant sent A and once sexual intercourse to the Incheon Metropolitan City Accountingdong.
H. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with A around the subway stations near the subway stations located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.
Accordingly, the defendant was sent to A over 11 times, respectively.
2. Defendant A knew that he was a spouse of the above B, and even at the same time and place as described in paragraph (1), Defendant A had sexual intercourse with B 11 times, respectively.
2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only when the spouse files a complaint under Article 241(2) of the Criminal Act.
However, according to the statement on the withdrawal of a complaint filed in the trial records, it is recognized that D, the spouse of Defendant B, has withdrawn all of the complaints against the Defendants around May 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is all conducted in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.