The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant, around July 20, 2013, discharged a fetus in a pregnancy of five weeks out of the body of C by means of an advanced pressure inhaled alcohol upon C’s request from the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu B and the third Asanbu and C.

Accordingly, the defendant was born by the request of the pregnant woman.

2. Determination

A. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is a modified form that is not prescribed by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, but constitutes a decision of unconstitutionality as to legal provisions.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7111 Decided January 15, 2009; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2003HunGa1, 2004HunGa4 Decided May 27, 2004; etc.). In addition, the main text of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that in a case where a decision of unconstitutionality is rendered with respect to the provision of the penal law, the provision becomes retroactively null and void. As such, in a case where the provision of the penal law becomes retroactively null and void, the Defendant’s case against which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the said provision is not a crime.

Therefore, the court shall render a verdict of innocence for the accused case according to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do7562 Decided June 23, 2011, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17936 Decided October 25, 2018, etc.) B.

After the institution of the instant case, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on the part of Articles 269(1) and 270(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057, Dec. 29, 1995) to the effect that “the intention” is not in conformity with the Constitution. The above provisions shall continue to apply until the legislator amended on December 31, 2020.”

(The Constitutional Court en banc Order 2017Hun-Ba127 Decided April 11, 2019 (hereinafter “instant Constitutional Court en banc Order”).

The decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of this case is a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to the provision of penal law as to the portion of “doctor” under Article 270(1) of the Criminal Act.