The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

Summary of Facts charged

1. Defendant A is a person who has been married with Defendant C on May 1, 1986, the complainant, and the spouse who has completed the marriage report. A.

On July 24, 2010, around 4:09, the Defendant sent to the B with a single sexual intercourse in a room where it is impossible to know the care room of the EM in Busan Northern-gu. D.

B. On August 12, 2010, around 1:49, the Defendant sent to the B with a single sexual intercourse within the mutual incompetence in Busan Northern-gu D.

C. On January 18, 201, at around 15:41, the Defendant sent to a restaurant with mutual incompetences B and once, respectively.

On February 13, 2011, at around 7:46, the Defendant sent to the B with a single sexual intercourse within the mutually incompetence in Busan Northern-gu D.

2. Defendant B knew that the above spouse was a spouse, and even at the same time and place as that of paragraph (1), the above Defendant had sexual intercourse with A four times as above, respectively.

However, the judgment subject to a retrial was found guilty by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act to each of the facts charged in this case, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 25, 2012.

On February 26, 2015, after the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court declared that the above provision of the law is unconstitutional.

(2011Hun-Ga31, etc.). The provisions of the law on punishment decided as unconstitutional pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, if there are cases previously decided as unconstitutional, shall retroactively lose its effect on the day following the date on which the decision is made. Since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on October 30, 2008 that the above provisions of the law do not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 31, 2008), the above provisions of the law were retroactively invalidated.

The facts charged of this case include acts after the date on which the retroactive effect takes effect. As such, the provisions applied to the facts charged of this case under the unconstitutionality decision prior to the above time lose its effect retroactively, the facts charged of this case is not a crime.