The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who is a spouse on January 21, 2003, who reported marriage with C on January 21, 2003.

On May 208, 2008, the Defendant sent B and once sexual intercourse at the hospital operated by the Defendant in the mutual incompetence in the Changdong-dong, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On June 2008, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B at the Changdong-dong, Dobong-gu Seoul, Changdong-gu.

C. On July 2008, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B at the Goyangyang-gu, Youngyang-gu, Hongyang-gu, one time.

On August 8, 2008, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B and once at the mutual incompetence located in the Changdong-dong, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

E. On Nov. 1, 2008, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B at the mutually influence tele-dong Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul.

F. On Dec. 2, 2008, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B at the Hosidong-dong Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul.

G. Around April 5, 2009, the Defendant sent sexual intercourse with the above B at the trading telecom located in Mangsan-gu, Mangsan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant was sent to the above B and seven times.

2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Article 241(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016).

However, since the Constitutional Court made a decision that the above legal provision is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba17, Feb. 26, 2015, etc.), the above legal provision, which is the applicable provision of the facts charged, was retroactively invalidated on October 31, 2008, on the day following the day when the previous decision of constitutionality (the Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ba17, Oct. 30, 2008, etc.) was made.

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 relevant provisions shall be limited to the case where it does not constitute a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3495, Mar. 10, 2005). If so, this case.