D and Between the Defendant and D 1) around September 2009, the Defendant sent D and once sexual intercourse at D’s house located in Ildong-gu E building 335, Jungdong-gu, Busan-si. (2) around November 2009, the Defendant sent D and once sexual intercourse at D’s house around November 2, 2009.

C. 3) On December 2009, the Defendant: (a) provided D and once sexual intercourse at the telecom with which it is impossible to know the trade name in Goyang-si, Goyang-si; (b) around January 2010, the Defendant provided D and once sexual intercourse with D at the home of the above D.

Accordingly, the defendant was sent to the above D over four times.

B. F and the Defendant, who had a trade name in Ilyang-gu, Mangyeong-gu, Sinyang-si, Sinyang-si, 2009, had a single sexual intercourse with F and the single sexual intercourse at the motherel where it is difficult to know the trade name.

C. At the end of June, 2010, the Defendant sent G and once sexual intercourse with G around 2010 at the Monael where the trade name located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yeongdeungpo-dong is unknown. 2) around July 2010, the Defendant sent G and once sexual intercourse with G in which the trade name located in Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do.

As a result, the defendant was linked to the above G twice. D.

H and Transboundary 1) around September 2, 2010, the Defendant respondedd with H one time with a single sexual intercourse at the mother telecom with which it is difficult to know the trade name located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. (2) around September 2010 to October 2010, the Defendant provided H and one time sexual intercourse with the Defendant at the mother telecom with which it is impossible to know the trade name located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

In this respect, the defendant was sent to the above H and each other twice.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor, applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act to the facts charged in the instant case, brought a public prosecution by applying Article 241(1) to the facts charged, and the judgment subject to a retrial was pronounced guilty, which became final and conclusive on February 1

B. However, on February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “Article 241 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293, Sep. 18, 1953) is in violation of the Constitution” in the case including the 2009Hun-Ba17, etc., and thereby, the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court.

(b).