The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged A is a person who has been married with the victim C on November 8, 2010.

On August 18, 2011, at around 24:00, the Defendant sent sexual intercourses with A and once with A on the third floor of the 3th floor of the Maneung-dong Maneung-dong Maneung-dong Maneung-dong.

On August 19, 2011, at around 09:00, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with A and once from the above telecom room.

On August 27, 2011, at around 10:00, the Defendant 1 and 1-time sexual intercourse in the studio of the above B located in Gwangju-si.

Accordingly, even though the Defendant became aware that he/she is a spouse of A around June 2011, he/she was sexual intercourse with A and 3, respectively.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor brought a prosecution against the facts charged in the instant case by applying the latter part of Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment subject to a retrial that found the Defendant guilty was rendered on September 20, 201 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2011.

B. However, on February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 241 of the above Criminal Act is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Decision 2009HunBa17, Feb. 26, 2015, etc.) (the Constitutional Court Decision 2009HunBa17, etc.). Accordingly, the above provision was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008, following the date when the previous decision of constitutionality (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007HunBa17, Oct. 30, 2008, etc.) was made pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

C. Meanwhile, in a case where the provisions of the Punishment Act retroactively lose its effect due to the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant’s case prosecuted by applying the pertinent provisions constitutes a case where the defendant’s case is not a crime.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that the Defendant did not disclose the summary of this judgment pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.