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

On June 23, 2018, at Asan City, around 09:00, the Defendant excavated the remains by removing the rocks of the deceased D’s vegetable burial, using the insertingment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. The defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act argues that the above act is not unlawful in light of social norms, as long as the defendant's defense counsel did not obtain the consent of the complainant who has the authority to protect, serve, manage, and dispose of the instant grave, since the distance between the defendant's grave built in front of the defendant and the defendant's grave built by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant grave") is too much difficult to do so, and thus, he moved the instant grave up to 1m next to the instant grave. The above act is alleged to the purport that it is not unlawful in light of social norms. However, as long as the above circumstances alleged by the defendant are true, it is difficult to view that the above act is reasonable to the extent permissible in light of social norms.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

The sentence shall be determined as per the order, taking into consideration the circumstances revealed in the records and changes of the instant case, such as the background and contents of the instant crime and the criminal records of the Defendant.