A. In light of the fact that the Defendant clearly confirmed that there was no remains in the grave of this case from I, who was authorized to negotiate with regard to the challenge of the grave of this case, and that if he had been aware of the existence of remains in the circumstance of being investigated due to an act of damaging the surroundings of the grave of this case, the Defendant could not be found to have the intention to excavate the grave of this case, in view of the fact that he did not commit the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable inasmuch as it is recognized that the Defendant had an intention to allow the existence of remains in the instant grave.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The deceased FF served as a student soldier in the Korean War and died, and thereafter, the graves of this case were created and managed by the deceased F E.

② On January 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) was found to have sold the land around the instant grave and installed a steel network; (b) was investigated by G in the capacity of the respondent around May 17, 2018; and (c) had attempted to talk with E in relation to the change of the instant grave; (d) as such, the Defendant appears to have been fully aware of the circumstances that the instant grave is a grave managed by G or E.