The defendant is innocent.

The Defendant is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on December 15, 2004. A.

On January 18, 2011, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with B and once at the dwelling of the Defendant, Nowon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Sinwon-gu, Seoul-gu, 401.

B. On February 18, 201, the Defendant sent sexual intercourses with the above B at the same place as time non-fluences.

C. On March 18, 201, the Defendant sent sexual intercourses with the above B at the same place as time non-fluences. D.

On April 18, 2011, the Defendant sent sexual intercourses with the above B at the same place as time non-fluences.

E. On May 18, 201, the Defendant respondeded to the foregoing B and once at the same place as time non-fluences.

F. On June 18, 201, the Defendant respondedd to the foregoing B and once at the same place as time non-fluences.

G. On July 18, 201, the Defendant sent sexual intercourses with the above B at the same place as time non-fluences.

H. On August 16, 201, the Defendant respondeded to the foregoing B and once at the same place as time non-fluences.

I. On September 1, 201, the Defendant sent a single sexual intercourse with the above B at the same place as time non-fluences.

In this respect, the defendant was sent to the above B over nine times.

Judgment

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions to the facts charged in this case, is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba17, Feb. 26, 2015) and Article 241 of the Criminal Act, due to the above unconstitutionality decision, was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008, after the previous decision of constitutionality (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 30, 2008, etc.) was made pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions shall be limited to a case which does not constitute a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9949, May 13, 201). Therefore, since the instant facts charged constitute a crime, it constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.