The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who has been married with C on September 1, 2008.

A. On August 20, 2009, between B and B around 21:00: D 301 of the following City:

B. At around 22:00 on September 2, 2009, a single sexual intercourse with B was made in the same place.

2. In a case where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent legal provision falls under the case where the defendant's case is not a crime.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825 delivered on May 8, 1992, 2004Do9037 delivered on April 15, 2005, etc.). The prosecutor prosecuted the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, and the Constitutional Court held on February 26, 2015, that Article 241 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the Criminal Act”) including the aforementioned applicable provisions of the Act is “the legal provisions of the instant case.”

The Court rendered a decision [209Hun-Ba17,205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 201Hun-Ba4, 2011Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba57, 255, 411, 2013Hun-Ba139, 161, 267, 276, 342, 365, 2014Hun-Ba53 and 464, 201Hun-Ba31, 2014Hun-Ba4 (merged)].

According to Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act, if there is a previous case in which the provisions of the Act on Punishment decided as unconstitutional have been ruled constitutional, the provisions of the Act on Punishment retroactively become invalid on October 30, 2008, and the Constitutional Court, on October 30, 2008, ruled that the provisions of the Act of this case do not violate the Constitution (2007Hun-Ga17,21, 2008Hun-Ba7, 2008Hun-Ba21, 47 (merged)). Thus, the provisions of the Act of this case retroactively lost its effect on October 31, 2008, which is the following day.

In the case of this case, it is evident that a public prosecution was instituted by applying the above provision which lost its validity with respect to each act committed on August 20, 2009 and September 2, 2009, which was after the effect of the provision of this case was retroactively lost.

3. Conclusion, the facts charged in this case do not constitute a crime.