The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspended execution) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. With knowledge that the Defendant is a spouse of A, around 00:24, June 2, 201, the summary of the facts charged: (a) followed by the second 203 parking lot in the E-building E, Namyang-si, the Defendant provided one-time sexual intercourse with A on June 7, 201; (b) around 17:00, at the Hemoto’s mutual incompetel located in Guri-si, the Defendant provided one-time sexual intercourse with A on June 14, 201; (c) around 04:20, at the Hemoto’s mutual incompetel located in Guri-si, the Defendant provided one-time sexual intercourse with A on June 14, 201; and (d) around 23:54 on June 18, 2011, at the 203-dong parking lot, the Defendant parked in the 203-dong parking lot and the 10-dong A on June 10, 2015.

In this respect, the defendant was 5 times between A and A.

3. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, the Constitutional Court rendered ex officio a decision of unconstitutionality on February 26, 2015 that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, the applicable provisions of the facts charged of this case, is in violation of the Constitution.

B. As a result of the decision of unconstitutionality, Article 241 of the Criminal Act, based on the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, lost its effect retroactively on October 31, 2008, following the day when the previous decision of constitutionality was made (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 30, 2008).

C. In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant’s case indicted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do949, May 13, 201). As such, the lower judgment convicting this part of the facts charged was no longer maintained.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the ground of the above reasons for reversal of authority, as to the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing.