The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged: (a) was aware that he/she was a spouse on May 8, 2002 after filing a marriage report with C on May 8, 201; (b) was unable to know the second floor room of Pyeongtaek-si Doel on September 23:0, 201; (c) was 45 passenger buses driven by the Defendant parked in front of the Park of Pyeongtaek-si in the early 19:00 on December 19, 201; (d) around 20:0 on 45 passenger buses driven by the Defendant parked in front of the Park of Pyeongtaek-si E-si on February 20, 201; and (e) around 20:00 on March 3, 201, within the number of 45 passenger buses driven by the Defendant who was parked in front of the Pyeongtaek-si Do Park, and (e) around 130 on April 130, 2011, within each of the 15 number of taxis.

2. On the other hand, the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 241 of the Criminal Act to the facts charged in this case.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 241 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016) violates the Constitution (amended by Act No. 13719, Feb. 26, 2015) was unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2009HunBa17, Feb. 26, 2015, etc.) and the above provision of the Act was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008 following the date on which the final constitutional decision (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007HunGa17, Oct. 30, 2008, etc.) was made.

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 case which was decided by the application of the relevant provisions shall be deemed to be a crime.

Inasmuch as the instant facts charged constitute a crime, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is not disclosed pursuant to the proviso of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the Defendant does not want to make a public announcement, the summary of the judgment is not disclosed pursuant to the proviso of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act.