The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around October 3, 2012, Defendant B knew that he is a spouse; (b) around October 6, 2012, in a room in which he was unable to find out the heading of the Ecomto D located in Macheon-si; (c) around October 6, 2012, in a room in which it is impossible to find out the heading of the Ecomto; and (d) around October 15, 2012, in a room in which it is impossible to find out the heading of the Ecom to find out the heading of the Ecomto; and (e) around October 15, 2012, Defendant B provided the heading of the Ecom to B with each other.

However, the Prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293, Sept. 18, 1953); the Defendant sentenced the Defendant to a judgment subject to a suspended sentence of one year in six months of imprisonment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2013.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court sentenced Article 241 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293, Sep. 18, 1953) to the effect that Article 241 of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional (see, e.g., 201 Constitutional Court Decision 31). In a case where a previous case is decided to be constitutional, the provisions of the Act on Punishment decided to be unconstitutional shall lose its effect retroactively on the day following the date on which the previous case is decided to be constitutional (Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act). The Constitutional Court sentenced that the above provision of the Act does not violate the Constitution on October 30, 208 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 31, 2008).

The facts charged of this case include acts after the base date on which the retroactive effect is effective, and the provisions of the law applicable to the facts charged of this case are retroactively invalidated, and the facts charged of this case does not constitute a crime.

In conclusion, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the Defendants under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.