The Defendant is a person who operates a “E Funeral” on the 2nd floor of Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

On December 22, 2012, at around 13:00, the Defendant excavated the remains in the Cheongdo-gun of Cheongdo-do, G by means of burying those remains in the H in the Cheongdo-gun of Cheongdo-do, without obtaining prior consent from the bereaved family members or permission from the competent authorities to open the grave. The Defendant excavated the remains in the grave by hiring six human fathers, and laying the remains in the grave to the I in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in the G in

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of cemetery damaged materials and report on investigation (Attachment of photographs on the excavation of a grave);

1. Article 160 of the Criminal Act as to the facts constituting the crime;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes are as follows: (a) the defendant received 60 million won (in addition, 90 million won shall be paid in total after receiving an additional payment of KRW 30 million) from the owner of a forest and received the transfer expenses for six graves and eight graves for which no one is connected with the owner of a forest; and (b) the defendant found the grave of this case in accordance with the agreement with this disability cycle until December 22, 2012; (c) not only found that the grave of this case is being connected with the grave of this case, but also found the grave of this case; (d) the remaining remains of this case are considerable mental suffering; and (e) it seems that the damage can not be easily recovered in money; and (e) the remaining losses and agreement with his grandchildren, such as the manager of a grave, have not been reached.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided, and the 15 million won is deposited as a successor, and there is only the previous conviction of fine, and there is no other reason for the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered in the arguments of this case as ordered.