A. Defendant C, while having been a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D, was sexual intercourses A and five times with each other from the date of October 2012 to the date of April 2013.

B. Defendant A, despite being aware that C is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D, was sexual intercourse three times from the date of April 2013 to the date of the same month, respectively.

2. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293, Sept. 18, 1953) is unconstitutional.

(The Constitutional Court Decision 2009Hun-Ba17, Feb. 26, 2015). In a case where a previous case was decided to be constitutional, the provisions of the law on punishment which was decided to be unconstitutional shall lose its effect retroactively on the day following the day on which the previous case was decided to be constitutional (Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provisions of the law do not violate the Constitution on October 30, 2008 (the Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 30, 2008, etc.). Thus, the above provisions of the law shall lose its effect retroactively on October 31, 2008, which is next day.

Where the provisions of the penal law are retroactively invalidated due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions of the law shall be deemed to be a crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8317 Decided June 28, 2007). Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, each of the Defendants is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified under Article 440 of the same Act.