logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.04.14 2015재고단3
간통
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged A is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with E on May 20, 2003.

The defendant knowingly knows that he is a woman with husband's father.

A. On June 12, 2006, around 24:00, between A and A, a car owned by the Defendant and a car of the Defendant parked in the parking lot for the Gyeong-do Office of the Gyeong-do Office of the Chungcheongnam-gu Office of the Chungcheongnam-gu Office of the Chungcheongnam-do, the Gyeong-do Office of the Chungcheongnam-gu Office of the Chungcheongnam-do;

B. At around 19:00 on July 16, 2006, the publication is made with A one-time sexual intercourse in the influence of monthly celebly located in the same Gun;

C. At around 19:00 on August 17, 2006, between A and A on the mutual influence of each of the districts located in the same military co-ordinium at each of the districts located in the same military;

D. At around 21:00 on September 15, 2006, 21:00, the air space wing reciting wing reticulator A with a single sexual intercourse;

E. At around 19:30 on December 10, 2006, between A and A on the mutual infinites located in the same non-finites located in the same military area;

F. Around December 15, 2006, around 18:43, 2006, HMoel 206 located in the same military Gel 206 sexual intercourse with the above A once.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution against each of the facts charged in this case by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the defendant was sentenced to a retrial, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 2009, following the date the Constitutional Court previously decided that the provisions of the above Act were constitutional.

However, after the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, Article 241 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293, Sept. 18, 1953) decided that the Constitutional Court violated the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga31, Feb. 26, 2015; 2014Hun-Ba4, 2009Hun-Ba17, 2009Hun-Ba205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 2011Hun-Ba4, 20114, 2012Hun-Ba57, 2012Hun-Ba25, 2012Hun-Ba411, 2013Hun-Ba139, 2013Hun-Ba267, 2013Hun-Ba276, 2013Hun-Ba342, 2013Hun-Ba365, 2014).

3. As such, the facts charged in this case are concluded.

arrow