All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Public Prosecutor's Office

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on January 10, 2007. A

On May 14, 2011, at around 01:00, the Defendant attended B and once with a room in which it is impossible to know the family room of the E hotel located in Gangwon-si.

B. At around 18:00 on the lower order of the same month, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with the above B and once in a room where it is impossible to find out the room of the Felel located in the Gyeongbuk-si.

C. The defendant's explanation

7. The first patrolman 303 of the building G in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, with the first sexual intercourse with the B. D.

Defendant for the same year

8. Around 21:00, in a room in which it is impossible to find out the family room of H hotel in the 21st century, the above B and the first sexual intercourse were met.

E. At around 20:00 on October 12, 200 of the same year, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with the above B in a room where it is impossible to find out the room of the I hotel in the time of Escoping the Republic of Turkey.

F. At around 20:00 on February 2, 2012, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the above B in a room where it is impossible to find out the heading of the (Gu) J hotel located in the Republic of the Philippines.

G. The defendant has been under the same year.

5. The above B and once sexual intercourse was conducted in a room in which it is impossible to find out the heading of the K hotel in the open space of Austrian.

H. At around May of the same year, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with the above B in a room where it is impossible to find out the family room of the L hotel located in the country of Austria.

Accordingly, the defendant was sent to the above B over eight times.

2. Defendant B knew that the above spouse was a spouse, and even at the same time and place as specified in paragraph (1), the above Defendant had sexual intercourse with the above A eight times, respectively.

The grounds for dismissing the prosecution are the crimes falling under Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act, which are those falling under Article 241 (2) of the same Act and can be prosecuted only when the spouse files a complaint under Article 241 (2) of the same Act. According to the records of this case, it can be recognized that the spouse of the defendant A cancels all the complaint against the defendants on May 15, 2013, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution against the defendants is all instituted in accordance with