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.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A is a person who has a spouse who has completed the marriage report with D on November 11, 1999.

1. At around March 26, 2010, Defendant A, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, conspiredd with B over a total of 28 times from around that time to December 7, 2010, with a view to a total of 28 occasions from around 26, 2010.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse, and even at the same time and place as described in paragraph (1), the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A over 28 times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. The defendant B's partial statement

1. A legal statement of a witness;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Marriage relation certificate:

1. Application of the statutes on the use of Samsung Card;

1. Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime;

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

1. Defendant B’s assertion as to the Defendant B’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da1548, Apr. 1, 201) is asserted that there was no cross-examination between Defendant B and A, as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 1 and 2. However, according to the consistent statement from A’s investigation agency to this court and the statement of the use of the Samsung Card in support of the statement, Defendant B’s her sexual intercourse with A in relation to Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the list of crimes, and thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected.