A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. Article 91 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act provides that "the act of designating a designated or provisionally designated cultural heritage by fraud or other improper means" is a constituent element of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. However, the elements of the crime of violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act should be strictly interpreted under the principle of no crime without the law. Therefore, even if part of the application concerning the designation of cultural heritage is false, the crime of violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act cannot be deemed established unless the contents of the application fall under a critical or important reason for the designation of cultural heritage. Even if the defendant falsely entered the details of the application concerning the designation of cultural heritage, regardless of the fact that the details of the application do not fall under a critical or important reason for the designation of cultural heritage, it cannot be deemed that the elements of violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act were not satisfied. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which convicted the defendant of the violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act on the grounds that he/she falsely entered the details of the complaint of the monthly stone book in a false manner.

3) In full view of the statements of the victim of misunderstanding facts (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) and cultural heritage experts, the punishment of unfair sentencing (4 years of suspended execution in two and half years of imprisonment) by the lower court (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) shall be too unreasonable and unfair. In full view of the statements of the victim of misunderstanding facts (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) and the cultural heritage experts, the relics alleged by the Defendant as Gok (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Gok”) shall not be considered as a good, and the Defendant may recognize the fact of deceiving the victim, knowing that the instant Gok was not a serious product,

Furthermore, the Defendant’s instant Gok flag, etc.