Defendants are not guilty.

Defendant A is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with D on March 13, 1998, and Defendant B is a company member.

1. Defendant A:

A. At the end of January 18, 2009, in a room where the family room of the Mourel cannot be known that the name in the monthly dong of the Gwangju Mine-gu cannot be known, the first defendant B and the first sexual intercourse;

B. At around 19:00 on February 19, 2009, the FMoel 304 room in Gwangju Mine-gu E was sent to the upper defendant B one time with each other.

2. Defendant B knew that he was the spouse A, and even at the same time and place as the above, the above defendant B had sexual intercourse with the above defendant A twice in each phase.

Judgment

The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against each of the charges of this case by applying Article 241(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment subject to a retrial that found him guilty became final and conclusive on August 27, 2009.

On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 241 of the Criminal Act, including the above applicable provisions, is unconstitutional.

[The Constitutional Court Decision 209Hun-Ba17,205, 2010Hun-Ba194, 2011Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba4, 2012Hun-Ba5, 255, 411, 2013Hun-Ba139, 161, 267, 276, 342, 365, 2014Hun-Ba53, 464, 201Hun-Ba31, 2011Hun-Ba31, 2014Hun-Ga4, 2014Hun-Ga4, which was decided as unconstitutional on February 26, 2015] The Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ba (see Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act), which retroactively loses its effect on the day following the date on which the previous decision was made (see Article 241 of the Criminal Act). Thus, the Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ba107, 308,207.

In a case where the provisions of the penal law are retroactively invalidated due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant who was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions.