However, as to the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the defendants are above.

1. The Defendant, on August 1, 1995, is a spouse who has reported marriage with C on August 1, 1995,

A. On February 2, 2008, the first sexual intercourse with Defendant A in the cross-American telecom, located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon:

B. Around May 2008, at the underground studio in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Defendant A and her sexual intercourse with Defendant A once.

2. Defendant A knew that he is a spouse of Defendant B, and even at the same time and place as the above, the two instances of sexual intercourses with Defendant B, as seen in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on family relation certificate;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants who aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants in a suspended sentence: Division of the crimes under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act);

1. The summary of the facts charged was a person who was married with C on August 1, 1995 and was married with C on February 1, 2009, and was sexual intercourse with Defendant A at the underground room located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon. Defendant A, despite being aware that Defendant B was a spouse, was sexual intercourse with Defendant B at the same time and place.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution with regard to the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment subject to a retrial, which was found guilty, became final and conclusive on June 30, 2011.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, including the above applicable provisions, is unconstitutional.

Constitutional Court Decision 209Hun-Ba17205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 2011Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba52541, 2013Hun-Ba1391267276365, 2014Hun-Ba53464, 201Hun-Ba31, 2011Hun-Ba31, 2014Hun-Ga4 (merged) decided as unconstitutional. The penal provisions of the Criminal Act determined as unconstitutional are the same.