All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Indictment

A. Defendant A is a spouse who has completed a marriage report with D on July 7, 1998.

1) On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant sent chip 401 to B and once with the studio 401 of the Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju. 2) On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant sent chip to B with the studio at the same place as B and the studio.

3) On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant, who was sexual intercourses B and B at the same location as the date of the first order, was sexual intercourses. 4) The Defendant was sexual intercourses with B at the same location as the date of the first order of January 2014.

5) On January 201, 2014, the Defendant, who was sexual intercourses B and B at the same place as the date in which the date was in order, was sexual intercourses. 6) On February 2, 2014, the Defendant was sexual intercourses B and one time with B at the same place as the date in which the date was in order.

7) On March 2014, the Defendant had a sexual intercourse with B at the same time and one time at the same time in which the date was in order of the first half of the year. (b) The Defendant knew that the said spouse was a spouse, and even at each time, at each place specified in Article 2-A (a) and at the same time and at each place specified in the foregoing paragraph, had a sexual intercourse with A seven times respectively. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the foregoing facts charged, was decided to be unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2009Hun-Ba17, Feb. 26, 2015). Upon the decision of unconstitutionality, Article 241 of the Criminal Act, due to the decision of Constitutional Court en banc Decision 207Hun-Ga17, Oct. 30, 2008, retroactively invalidated the previous decision of constitutionality (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2007Hun-Ga17, Oct. 31, 208.

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 relevant law shall not be a crime.