The Defendants are not guilty.

A. Defendant A (a factual error) does not have any relation to the Defendant as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

B. Defendant B (i.e., the Defendant did not know the facts as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

B. The sentence of the first instance of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance court (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unfair;

2. Summary of the facts charged and judgment of the first instance court

A. The summary of the facts charged (i) Defendant A is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with F on November 3, 1988.

Around 01:00 on March 31, 2013, the Defendant, at the Seopopo-si, Seopo-do, Seopo-si G, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-do, provided B with a single sexual intercourse.

In this respect, the defendant passed through the above B once.

Shed Defendant B knew that the above spouse was a spouse, and even at the same time, at the same place as the above, the Defendant conspiredd with A once with A, as stated in paragraph (1).

B. The first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in the judgment.

3. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in the instant case, in cases such as 209HunBa17, etc.

In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3495, Mar. 10, 2005). As such, the first instance judgment which found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged by applying Article 241 of the Criminal Act was no longer maintained.

4. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

The summary of the instant facts charged is as follows.