logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.14 2015재고단37 (1)
간통
Text

Defendants are innocent.

Reasons

[Facts of Prosecution]

1. Defendant A, who had completed the marriage report with D on July 9, 1991, was a spouse who was married, around October 22, 2009, 01:30 on October 22, 2009, Defendant A’s studio 304 of the Defendant’s studio in Kimhae-si, and Defendant B’s studio.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of Defendant A, the Defendant had been sexual intercourse with Defendant A once, at the same time and place as described in paragraph 1.

[Judgment] 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 decision for a retrial that found him/her guilty was rendered and confirmed on August 28, 2014.

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 have retroactively lost its effect on the day following the day on which the previous decision was made (Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act). 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.). As such, the above provisions of the Act retroactively lost its effect on October 31, 2008, which is next day.

The facts charged of this case include acts after the base date on which retroactive effect is effective, and the applicable provisions of the facts charged of this case have retroactively lost its effect according to the unconstitutionality decision above.

Where the provisions of the penal law are retroactively invalidated due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions of the law shall be deemed to be a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825, May 8, 1992; 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825, May 8, 1992; 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007)

arrow