The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 6, 2011, the summary of the facts charged reveals that A is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on May 8, 2008, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with A one time with the Felel located in the main terminal located in the main harbor located in the main harbor located in the Gosi-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, and that on August 6, 201, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with A at the Defendant’s house located in the Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul on September 201, and that on October 10, 201, the Defendant provided a single sexual intercourse with A and one time sexual intercourse with A at HIel located in the main harbor located in the main harbor located in the main harbor located in the Gosi-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act to the facts charged, and the judgment subject to a retrial that found the Defendant guilty became final and conclusive on June 14, 2013.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 293 on September 18, 1953) is unconstitutional.

[The Constitutional Court Decision 209Hun-Ba17,205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 2011Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba5, 255, 411, 2013Hun-Ba139, 161, 267, 276, 342, 365, 2014Hun-Ba53, 464, 201Hun-Ba31, 2011Hun-Ba31, 2014Hun-Ga4, 2014Hun-Ga4, which was decided as unconstitutional on February 26, 2015 [Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act] Where a previous case is decided as unconstitutional, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision does not violate the Constitution on October 30, 2008 (Article 207Hun-Ba17).

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.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.