Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with E on November 23, 2004. A

On June 2012, the Defendant sent back to B and once with the cross-dissected penta in the context of the port of port.

B. On September 3, 2012, the Defendant, at the house of the F apartment 103, No. 308, 103, and 308, sent a cross-section with B once.

2. Defendant B with knowledge that the above Defendant was a spouse of the above A, the above Defendant B was one of the above parties.

At the date, time, place, as described in the paragraph above, A had sexual intercourse with A once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Family relation certificates and recording records;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendants did not have any sexual intercourse at Defendant B’s home around September 3, 2012, as to the Defendants’ assertion on the investigation report (the output of the proba analysis report and the CD attachment of mobile analysis data) and the defense counsel.

In the case of a crime of adultery, the act is conducted under the circumstances in which it is difficult to expect the existence of a direct physical evidence or witness, since the act is conducted under the circumstances in which the party is confidential or outside, and therefore it is difficult to expect the existence of a witness. Thus, it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value of the crime before and after the commission of the crime, and it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value of the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4977, Nov. 27, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Center in this case and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the Defendants met or become aware of at a meeting of the Motor Vehicle Cafa Association; the Defendants were forced to talk with the first police officer on April 2012; and the Defendants were already sexual intercourse around June 2012; ② the Defendants were at the Defendant’s house at night on September 2, 2012.