beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.
except that for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B was sentenced to a fine of two million won on September 20, 2012 in the Jeonju District Court's branch court.
1. Defendant B is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D in 1996.
On February 17, 2012, the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with A at the place of residence of Go Chang-gun E 101, Go Chang-gun, Go Chang-gun.
2. Defendant A knew that he was a spouse of the above B, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with B once with the above.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution
1. Each legal statement of witness D, F, G, and H;
1. Application of statutes on site photographs;
1. Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes under relevant Articles of the Criminal Act;
1. Reasons for conviction under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the fact that there was no criminal record who was punished for the same kind of crime for the defendant, the marital relationship between the defendant B and the complainant was in the process of leading to the failure at the time of the instant adultery, and even though the defendants denied the instant adultery, a broad sense of misconduct is denied, but a broad sense of misconduct is recognized, and their mistake is recognized)
1. The evidence of conviction of the facts charged does not necessarily require direct evidence, but is possible by indirect evidence, and even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value individually, it can be found that there is probative value, such as facts charged. Thus, if it is difficult to expect direct evidence due to extreme corruption or outside, such as the crime of adultery between men and women, it is sufficient to view that facts charged are proven in light of the empirical rule, by taking account of various evidences on the circumstances before and after the crime.