Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A is a person who is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with C on May 15, 1988.

On Aug. 19, 2008, the Defendant sent a trade name in the Busan-gu document to B with a single sexual intercourse in the mother telecom where it is impossible to know the trade name in the Busan-gu document.

B. Defendant B knew that he was a spouse of A, the Defendant conspiredd with A on the date, time, and place as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph.

2. Article 241 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016) (amended by Act No. 13719, Feb. 26, 2015) which applies to the above charged facts was declared as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court’s decision, such as the BaBa17, etc. on February 26, 2015

As a result of the above decision of unconstitutionality, Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008, following the date of the previous decision of constitutionality (the Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, October 30, 2008, etc.) pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the defendant's case is not a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.). 3. As such, the above facts charged constitute a case where it is not a crime, and thus, the defendants are acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.