Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with C on December 23, 1987, and the defendant B is a Leak instructor.

1. Defendant A

A. On September 2008, the Defendant sent to the above B one-time sexual intercourse from the mutual incompetence in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yeongdeungpo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu.

B. The Defendant, around December 2008, cross-consected with the above B one-time sexual intercourse at the cross-consective telecom located in Chinese Cheongdo-do.

C. On January 2009, the Defendant sent to the Defendant’s officetel located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan Government Office”) one-time sexual intercourse with the above B, and

D. On April 2009, the Defendant sent to the foregoing B and 1 time from the mutual incompetence near the Korea Facilities Corporation located in Jeonju-si.

E. Around June 2009, the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with the above B in the mutual incompetence located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

2. Defendant B knew that the above Defendant was a spouse of the above A, and had sexual intercourse with the above A five times at the same time and time as above, respectively, at the same time and place as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

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. For the reason of sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (defendant B), the defendant was sentenced to a punishment in light of the following facts: although the defendant had no criminal record of the same kind or suspension of execution or more, the defendant was the first citizen of the society who was employed as a part-time student of the research institute in his/her president, and was the first citizen of the society in which he/she was employed as a part-time student of his/her president, due to his/her continuous sexual intercourse with his/her money and employment, leading to the gap between him/her and his/her family and relatives; threatening him/her to the gap between him/her in order to maintain internal relations; and even in this court, he/she does not seem to have any anti-discrimination light, such

Defendant

B: He was the first offender, and was in depth a mistake, and there was an employer.