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

The Defendant, while operating D in the following City, was delegated by H’s father-gu I, who is the husband of the forest owner G, for all acts pertaining to five graves in which five remains are buried, such as his father, who is managed by the F, etc. located in the E forest and field, in the course of Kim Jong-si.

On June 4, 2013, the Defendant excavated a grave in the above E forest and fields, such as breaking the spawn at will and the spawn containing remains, in order to remove a grave without knowledge of the fact that the said grave is being managed by a relative, even though he knows from I, he was aware of the fact that the said grave was managed by a relative.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness I and H;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and certificates of agreement on relocation of cemeteries;

1. Article 160 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without an agreement with the relative while undergoing the procedure, such as the public announcement of a newspaper for the burial), the Defendant alleged that all procedures had been completed by I, and that he/she was found to have excavated and raised a grave upon request from I. However, the I stated that he/she requested a burial of a cemetery after he/she told the Defendant of the circumstances, such as where the parties to the cemetery and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the procedures for the burial, in an investigative agency and this court, the I stated to the effect that he/she requested the burial of a cemetery; the state stated that “the Defendant shall be legally liable for the burial of the cemetery; the Defendant is engaged in the funeral business; the Defendant was specifically aware of the procedures for the burial; but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was believed only when I was the relative of the grave.