All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the first instance judgment by the prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The punishment of each of the judgment below by the defendant (the first judgment: 2 years of imprisonment and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment of the second instance court ex officio

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a spouse who reported the marriage with K on March 3, 1978.

On September 2013, the Defendant sent to the G and one-time sexual intercourse in a mix of “M” Ma” Mal-gun L, G, and the other sexual intercourse in the lux of “M” Mal-gun, G.

B. B. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Constitutional Court rendered an ex officio decision on February 26, 2015 that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions for the facts charged of this case, is unconstitutional.

Article 241 of the Criminal Act, due to the decision of unconstitutionality, was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008, following the day when the previous decision of constitutionality was made (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007HunGa17, Oct. 30, 2008) in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007HunGa17, etc.).

As such, in a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the defendant is not a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do949, May 13, 201). As such, the defendant's cross-competence against the defendant constitutes a case where it is not a crime and thus should be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the above cross-competence becomes

3. As to the prosecutor’s decision on the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the Defendant’s argument on unfair sentencing, the Defendant shall continuously send intimidation letters and text messages to the victim who intends to liquidate an inhumanity relationship, and the victim.