According to Article 59(2) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, a person who exports or ships out cultural heritage not designated as a movable property without obtaining permission is punished. In this case, the argument argues to the effect that if the person wants not to obtain permission from the head of the literature delivery department and keeps it in the Republic of Korea, it is reasonable to deem that the commission of the above crime was commenced at this time. However, the above fact alone does not yet mean that the commission of the crime under Article 59(2) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act has yet to be commenced. The lower court, without permission from the head of the literature delivery department, deemed that the above sentence is merely a preparatory act of the above crime. It is justifiable to deem that the lower court’s act is merely a preparatory act of the crime. The argument is groundless.

(2) Next, the grounds of appeal by Defendant Park Jong-ho are examined as follows. In full view of the evidence cited by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts constituting the offense of this case against the Defendant. Since there was an appeal by the prosecutor, even though the appellate court rendered a judgment not guilty on a part of the facts constituting the offense of the first instance judgment, it may impose a surcharge more than the amount of the surcharge imposed by the court of first instance even though the appellate court rendered a judgment not guilty on the part of the facts constituting the offense of the first instance judgment. In such a case, since the punishment imposed by the defendant is less than 10 years of imprisonment, it shall not be deemed that there is misconception of facts in the appellate judgment or that the sentencing is unfair. The court below did not err by recognizing the facts constituting the Defendant solely based on the appraisal result by the appraiser Kim Dong-ho, and there is no illegality. The argument is asserted to the effect that the Defendant’s act of this case was not known at all, but there is no evidence to deem that there is a justifiable reason

(3) Next, the defendant's counsel's grounds of appeal (the defendant is not the defendant's grounds of appeal) are examined. In light of the records, the evidence cited by the court below can be sufficiently recognized by the court below to this defendant. It is a theory without any evidence that the court below acknowledged the facts of the crime. This case's ground of appeal is not the case where the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years. This case's ground of appeal is not the case where the court below's judgment is erroneous. It is necessary to permit the Minister to deliver cultural properties overseas, but it cannot be viewed that the defendant's 17 points of cultural properties (which are stated in the facts of the first instance court's 4 points of fact recognized by the court below) were submitted to the Busan Customs Office's Prosecutor at the time of submitting the above 17 points of cultural properties to the Busan Customs Office's request for permission. Although it is clearly explained that the above articles were not required by the President's permission in order to remove cultural properties or there is no legitimate ground for misunderstanding, this is no violation of law regarding the above 17th evidence evidence of evidence.

Therefore, this appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is all groundless.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet