The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendants) does not have to have any communications between the Defendants and the dates and places stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the crime of adultery is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

We examine the Defendants’ grounds for appeal ex officio prior to their judgment.

In the case on February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, in the case of 2009HunBa17 (Joint) Decided February 26, 2015. In the case where the law or the legal provisions on punishment retroactively become invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3495, Mar. 10, 2005). Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged by applying Article 241 of the Criminal Act became no longer available to maintain.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion, and the judgment of the court below is again decided as follows.

【Discretionary Judgment】

1. Summary of the facts charged

1. Defendant A is a person who has completed a marriage report with D on October 30, 1997.

On February 17, 2013, the Defendant sent to the F (ju) lodging in Pyeongtaek-si E one time with sexual intercourse.

2. Defendant B, while being aware that the above spouse was a person who had a spouse, had sexual intercourses with the above A once, at the same time and place as the above in the preceding paragraph.

2. As seen above, as Article 241 of the Criminal Act, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged of this case, loses its effect retroactively to the decision of unconstitutionality, the facts charged of this case constitutes a case where it does not constitute a crime.

Therefore, in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendants are all.