Defendants are not guilty.

A. The Defendants had no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and even if they had sexual intercourse, they had sexual intercourse.

Even if Defendant A’s spouse D expressed his intent to end or end up, Defendant A’s spouse D’s intention.

However, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 6 months of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution) imposed on the Defendants by the lower court on the Defendants are excessively unreasonable.

2. On February 26, 2015, the ex officio decision made a decision that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is a applicable provision to the facts charged in the instant case, is unconstitutional (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2009HunBa17, Feb. 26, 2015). In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision, constitutes a crime not committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3495, Mar. 10, 2005) and Article 241 of the Criminal Act, and the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 241

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as follows.

【Discretionary Judgment】

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on December 2, 2010.

On September 10, 2011, the Defendant sent to the B with the Ftel 501, B, and once, residing in Yongsan-gu, Youngyang-si E.

B. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above A, the said Defendant had sexual intercourse with A once, as seen above.

2. We examine the judgment, the instant case.