All of the public prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A is a person who has completed a marriage report with D on November 30, 1983.

1) On October 201, 201, the Defendant served in B and once with B, which were parked in the near E, G, and one time in line with the Defendant’s seat. 2) On November 201, 201, the Defendant served as a sexual intercourse with B in the place indicated in the preceding paragraph at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph of the Warman.

3) On December 201, 201, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph, as seen above, at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph. (4) On January 201, 201, the Defendant provided sexual intercourse with B and once in the said manner at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph.

5) On February 2012, 2012, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph by the said method. 6) On March 2012, 2012, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph by the said method.

7) On April 2012, 2012, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph by the said method. 8) On May 2012, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse at the places indicated in the preceding paragraph by the said method.

9 On June 2012, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with B and once in the place described in the preceding paragraph, at the place specified in the preceding paragraph.

In this respect, the defendant was sent to the above B over nine times.

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

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Code, which is a crime falling under Article 241 (2) of the Criminal Code and can be prosecuted only upon the complaint of the spouse pursuant to Article 241 (2) of the Criminal Code. According to the records of the case, it can be recognized that the spouse D of the defendant A revoked all the complaint against the defendants on March 11, 2013, which is after the prosecution of the case. Thus, the prosecution of the case against the defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article