beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A was married to D on February 17, 1992, and was married to the same place on March 11, 201, and was married to B and once in a room for the concurrent use of the dwelling space of the Defendant E and the Defendant of the Republic of Korea on March 11, 201, and was married to B and once at the same place on March 23, 201, around 19:54, at the same time and around March 30, 201, and was sexual intercourse with B at the same place on March 30, 201, at around 19:0, around April 19:00, and around April 25, 2011, at the same place as above, one sexual intercourse with B and one sexual intercourse with each other on April 25, 2011.
Defendant
B knew of the fact that the above defendant A is a spouse, the above defendant A had sexual intercourse with A over five times in total at the same time and place as above.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment, applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293, Sept. 18, 1953) to the facts charged in the instant case, was prosecuted, and the judgment subject to the judgment for retrial, which was found guilty, became final and conclusive around that time.
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 Act on Punishment decided as unconstitutional shall retroactively lose its effect on the day following the day on which the previous decision is made (Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act). Since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provisions of the Act do not violate the Constitution on October 30, 2008 (Article 2007Hun-Ga17, etc.). Thus, the above provisions of the Act retroactively lose its effect on October 31, 2008, which is next day.
The facts charged of this case include acts after the base date on which the retroactive effect is affected, and the applicable provisions of this case’s facts charged were retroactively invalidated in accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality as above.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendants pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.