1. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with E on October 21, 201. A

On February 18, 2013, around 23:30 on February 23:3, 2013, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with B and once at an influence room near the death and injury terminal located in Busan Metropolitan City.

B. On March 12, 2013, around 15:40 on March 12, 2013, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with the above B at the GMomoel 302 room located in Busan Seo-gu.

In this respect, the defendant was sent to the above B twice.

2. Defendant B was aware that the above spouse was a spouse, and the same date, time, and place as described in the preceding paragraph were sexual intercourses with A twice, respectively.

Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with E on October 21, 2011.

On February 8, 2013, at around 11:16, the Defendant sent to the inter-disceptur near the Korean complex logistics terminal, which is located in Yangsan-si No. 936-4, Yangsan-si.

On June 10, 2014, the judgment subject to a retrial was affirmed by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act to the facts charged in this case.

On February 26, 2015, after the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court declared that the above provision of the law is unconstitutional.

(2011Hun-Ga31, etc.). The provisions of the law on punishment decided as unconstitutional pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, if there are cases previously decided as unconstitutional, shall retroactively lose its effect on the day following the date on which the decision is made. Since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on October 30, 2008 that the above provisions of the law do not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 31, 2008), the above provisions of the law were retroactively invalidated.

The facts charged of this case include acts after the base date on which the retroactive effect is effective, and the facts charged of this case are determined as unconstitutional.