The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below was erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although there was no fact that the defendant had sexual intercourse with F and F, otherwise, that the defendant had sexual intercourse with F.

B. The defendant asserts that since Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions to the facts charged in this case, loses its effect due to the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant should be acquitted.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant of the instant facts charged is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with C on April 19, 2012.

1. On February 2013, 2013, the Defendant sent F and once sexual intercourse at the guest room in the Eelbel Dom Da, Kim Jong-si.

2. On February 2013, the Defendant sent to the Defendant with F and once sexual intercourse at the guest room in the front Mosel room in the middle 2013.

3. On February 2013, 2013, the Defendant sent F and once sexual intercourse at the guest room in the above telecom room.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, the applicable provisions of the facts charged in the instant case, is unconstitutional. As a result of the said decision of unconstitutionality, Article 241 of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2007HunBa17, Oct. 30, 2008). The previous decision of constitutionality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007HunBa17, Oct. 31, 2008) was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008.

In a case where the Criminal Act or a legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant’s case indicted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9949, May 13, 201). As such, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by applying Article 241 of the Criminal Act is no longer the same.