logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2015.04.17 2015재고단2
간통
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) was aware that he/she is a spouse of B; (c) was sexual intercourse with B on October 2013 in a room in which it is impossible to know that he/she had the custody room of the DNA, which is located in B, and once in the room in which he/she was unable to know; (d) was sexual intercourse with B and once in a room in which he/she was unable to know about the care room of the Fel in E, which is located in Gong, on November 2, 2013; and (e) was sexual intercourse with B and once in a room in which it is impossible to identify the care room of the DNA, located in Gongju-si, on November 2013.

2. On September 27, 2014, the Prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment subject to a retrial, which was found guilty, became final and conclusive on the same day.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, including the applicable provisions, is unconstitutional.

[The Constitutional Court Decision 209Hun-Ba17,205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 2011Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba5, 255, 411, 2013Hun-Ba139, 161, 267, 276, 342, 365, 2014Hun-Ba53, 464, 201Hun-Ba31, 2011Hun-Ba31, 2014Hun-Ga4, 2014Hun-Ga4, which was decided as unconstitutional on February 26, 2015] The Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ba (see Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act), which retroactively loses its effect on the day following the date on which the previous decision was made (see Article 241 of the Criminal Act). Thus, the Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ba107, 308,207.

In a case where the provision of the penal law becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case charged by the Defendant by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825, May 8, 1992; 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007).

arrow