However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, jointly with large-scale type B, installed 1 high-parent families graves, 1 high-parent families graves, 2 high-parent families graves, 1 grandparents grave, 1 grandparents grave, and 1 parent grave in Incheon-gun, which inherited jointly with large-scale type B, etc. However, the Defendant was willing to open a grave located in forests and fields in which disputes arise, and then file a claim for partition of co-owned property.

In spite of the absence of the right to manage and dispose of a grave because the Defendant was not a third party, the Defendant laid out the grave by arbitrarily cutting the remains of six tombs during the period from June 24, 2017 to the D public cemetery from June 26 of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness B, E, F, and G legal statement;

1. A photograph (No. 11) B had management authority over the said grave as a deceased person.

The defendant was also aware that he managed graves B.

When the defendant found the graves to be removed, the right to manage and dispose of the graves was infringed.

Considering the relationship between the defendant and B, the circumstances at the time of the instant crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is a ground to deny illegality in the act of transfer.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 160 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime concerned;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Consideration of criminal conduct, criminal records, etc.);