[간통][집1(9)형,005]
Whether it conflicts with the former Criminal Code and the Constitution concerning the adultery
Gender equality refers to the fundamental rights of the people, not only to mention different legal relations depending on gender and other status, but also to interpret that Article 8(1) of the former Criminal Act concerning the adultery, which is stipulated in the concept that respects the maternal commonism, is in conflict with that of Article 8(1) of the Constitution.
Articles 8 and 100 of the Constitution, Article 183 of the former Criminal Act
Prosecutor General;
Daegu District Court of the first instance
Article 183 of the former Criminal Act concerning the adultery, which is the facts charged in the original judgment, conflicts with Article 8(1) of the Constitution, and thus, the part of the judgment that "it is not guilty on the ground that there is no penal provision, since Article 100 of the same Act does not have its effect."
Since the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Korea's non-permanent appeal was married to Non-Indicted 1 at the time of 16 years of age, and Non-Indicted 2 was employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at the time of residence, despite the fact that the defendant was not aware of the denial of his or her status, there is no provision of the current Criminal Procedure Act concerning the non-Indicted 2 at the time of 8 years of age, which is in violation of the Constitution, and there is no provision concerning the non-Indicted 3 at the time of 10 p.m. of the current unconstitutionality of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no provision concerning the non-Indicted 3 at the time of 10 p.m. of the current unconstitutionality judgment of Non-Indicted 2 at the time of 10 p.m., the court of first instance, which is the first instance court's first instance court's decision, has no effect on the non-Indicted 2 at the time of 8 p.m. on the same date, and there is no provision concerning the non-Indicted 1 at the same time.
The reasoning of the original judgment in the appellate court is that the defendant married with the non-indicted 1 at the time of 16 years of age, and the non-indicted 2 is a father of his father who takes the marriage system at that time, and the defendant was a person working for the deaf. On or around May 4285, the defendant, while knowing the denial line of the defendant's father's father, the defendant formed a single church with mutual justice combined with the non-indicted 3 in the Hacheon-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and entered into a single church at around 3 times from August 25 of the same year to September 21 of the same year, and recognized the fact that he entered into a one-time relationship with the non-indicted 3 and two times before and after the same year from September 25 of the same year, Article 183 (1) of the former Punishment of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is a provision for the crime of inter-Korean crimes, and it is reasonable to punish Article 183 (1) of the former Punishment of the Criminal Procedure Act as a violation of gender and other basic rights.
Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)