업무상촉탁낙태
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, with the trade name of "E" in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, performed abortion procedures by inserting metal plates from F (28 years old, pregnant 4-5 parking) that was visited by the broker of abortion procedures through A, a broker of abortion procedures, around December 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) performed abortion procedures by promptly inserting the fetus and separating it from the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.
In the end, the defendant was born twice on commission of female, and the defendant was born twice.
The following facts can be acknowledged according to the records of the judgment subject to review and the decision of commencing a retrial.
On July 14, 2016, by applying Article 270(1) and (4) of the Criminal Act to the above facts charged, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of six months and a suspended sentence of one year.
Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, and this Court reversed the judgment of the court below on October 13, 2016, and suspended the sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications) applying the above provision on the above facts charged (the judgment on review), and this judgment was finalized on October 21, 2016.
On May 15, 2020, the Defendant rendered a request for a retrial regarding a judgment subject to a retrial, and this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the part of the Defendant among the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that there exist grounds for a retrial under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the above decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive around
After the decision for ex officio judgment becomes final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered on April 11, 2019 does not conform with the Constitution with respect to “Proceedings” in Article 270(1) of the Criminal Act.
The above provision shall be amended by legislators at the time of December 31, 2020.