Defendants are not guilty.

Public Prosecutor's Office

1. Defendant A was a person who was a spouse after filing a marriage report with E on December 1, 1995. At around 22:40 on Jan. 15, 2010, Defendant A and the first floor of Gamoto who was in the Gamoto F was sexual intercourse with B in a room where it is impossible to know about the first floor of Gamoto.

2. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse, and even at the same time and place as above, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with A once, as seen above.

Judgment

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions of the charges in this case, is unconstitutional.

(The Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba17, Feb. 26, 2015). As a result of the above unconstitutional decision, Article 241 of the Criminal Act was invalidated retroactively on October 31, 2008, following the date on which the previous constitutional decision was made in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality, where the law or legal provision on punishment retroactively loses its validity, the case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision of the Act shall be applicable to the case where the defendant was not committed as a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9949, May 13, 201). If so, the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.