beta
Text
All of the public prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
Indictment
1. Defendant B is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on July 2, 1997. A.
At around 02:00 on June 8, 2013, the Defendant 104, 401, Embunpo-gu, Mucompo-gu, Embunpo-gu, 104, and 1 other sexual intercourses with A.
B. At around 13:00 on June 15, 2013, the Defendant sent to the family of the above A one-time sexual intercourse with A.
C. At around 00:00 on June 28, 2013, the Defendant sent to A with sexual intercourse one time with A at the house of the above Party A. D.
At around 15:00 on June 29, 2013, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with A in a room where it is impossible to know the family room of Gmotour in F in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si.
E. On July 5, 2013, at around 23:00, the Defendant, at a room where it is impossible to find out the family room of the I hotel located in Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, the Defendant was sent to the Defendant with a sexual intercourse once with A.
F. At around 01:00 on July 7, 2013, the Defendant, at a room where it is impossible to find out the family room of the K hotel located in the Simpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si (hereinafter referred to as “Mapo-si”).
2. Defendant A misrepresented the above NIS staff, and even after being aware that the above B was a spouse, Defendant A conspiredd with B and six times respectively at the same time and place as the above in paragraph (1).
Judgment
Each of the facts charged in the instant case is a crime 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 records, the complainant D can recognize the fact that he revoked the complaint against the defendant on July 14, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case, after the prosecution of this case, and the revocation of the complaint against the defendant A shall have the effect of revocation of the complaint against the defendant Eul, an accomplice pursuant to the principle of no payment of the complaint (Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, each of the prosecution against the defendants in this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per