The instant land had been installed D’s grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) that died around 1822, as shown in the attached pictures, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff, as D’s descendants, had the right to manage and dispose of the instant grave; (b) filed a complaint with an investigation agency against the Defendant, who excavated the instant grave on or around February 2017, to excavate it.

On April 19, 2018, the Defendant tried to sell the said land to another person as the owner of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City C Cemetery 627 square meters, for the following crimes in the Ulsan District Court (2017dan1778), but it was anticipated that there was a difficulty in selling the said land due to a grave of the five-line line A’s grave on the said land, and that there was an attempt to excavate the deceased D’s grave on the said land.

On November 23, 2016, the Defendant excavated a grave by taking advantage of sckes, even though he/she did not have the right to manage and dispose of the deceased D's graves which he/she had been set up in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, including A, and other E, which was set up in Gangseo-gu.

was convicted.

In regard to the above judgment, the defendant is merely a dead grave or a grave and does not constitute an element for the crime of excavation of a grave. Since the defendant is the F's descendants, who is the captain of D, and has management authority over the grave of this case, the act of excavating the grave of this case constitutes a justifiable act. Even if there is no management authority, the act of excavating the grave of this case constitutes a justifiable act. Even if there is no legitimate reason to believe that the grave of this case is entitled to the right to the right to the grave of this case, and there is no perception of illegality, and if the sentencing is unfair, the appellate court appealed against the Ulsan District Court 2018No376. However, the appellate court appealed that the grave