A. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with C on January 14, 1993.

1) On January 2009, the Defendant passed a single sexual intercourse with the Daejeon Middle-gu Daejeon D 209, Daejeon, Daejeon. (2) On April 2, 2009, the Defendant sent a single sexual intercourse with the said B at the same place as the early policeman on April 2009.

B. On April 2009, Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of the above Defendant A, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with the above Defendant A on April 1, 2009, Daejeon D 209, and the first sexual intercourse with the said Defendant.

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 found guilty, became final and conclusive on May 7, 2010.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, including the above applicable provisions, is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Decision 2009Hun-Ba17,205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 2011Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba57, 255, 411, 2013Hun-Ba139, 161, 267, 276, 342, 365, 2014Hun-Ba53, 464, 201Hun-Ba31, 2014Hun-Ba4, 31, 2014Hun-Ba4, 207Hun-Ba1, 208, 208Hun-Ba2086, 208, 208, 208).

On the other hand, where the provisions of the Punishment Act retroactively lose its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions shall be deemed to constitute a crime.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825 delivered on May 8, 1992, 2005Do8317 delivered on June 28, 2007, etc.). 3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.