However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt as to the possibility that the Defendant was aware of the existence of G’s grave as his parent’s grave, and that there is insufficient indirect or circumstantial evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s criminal intent, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① At the permanent residence of H, G’s graves were installed, and I’s neighboring land was changed to S and I’s land.

In this chapter, it shall be expressed in the existing subdivisions.

There was a grave of J and K, the parent of E.

In this regard, the graves of J and K were in appearance sealed.

G’s graves, J and K’s graves were in the vicinity, and were installed in a common cemetery.

② G’s graves, J, and K’s graves were located on the access roads to the relocation complex to be newly created due to the C flooding.

Accordingly, the Defendant received request from E to request the above J and K to change this disability, and filed a report on the opening of each of the above graves to the president of L/C on July 1, 2014.

(3) At the time of the grave of G, J, and K, a compensation project operator due to the death of C, who has not set up a plaque, etc. to identify his/her owner at the time.