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

The defendant is a person who operates C Co., Ltd. and is promoting leisure business at D Won in Thai-si.

On May 9, 2015, the Defendant excavated, without the consent of the victim E, a manager of the victim E's grave installed in Thai-si D in order to create a project site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against the accused in the protocol of suspect interrogation (including the E and G respective statements);

1. Statement of each police statement concerning E and G;

1. Photographss before, after, and after, excavation, and grave photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of cremation certificate;

1. Article 160 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 200, Jan. 1, 2007>

1. The alleged defendant opened the grave of this case after obtaining permission to open the grave in which his relative was unknown according to the procedures prescribed by the Act on Funeral Services, Etc., and thus, the act of this case constitutes a legitimate act that is dismissed in illegality.

2. Determination

A. The Act on Funeral Services, etc. provides that the landowner, etc. may open a grave installed on the relevant land with the permission of the competent Mayor, etc.

However, it is true that G, which is the head of the site office, has a grave for the management of the back to the project site, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.