logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1979. 11. 13. 선고 78도1685 판결
[문화재보호법위반][공1980.1.1.(623),12357]
Main Issues

The case holding that it is not recognized as movable property which needs to be registered under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act by the Korea Consumer Protection Act;

Summary of Judgment

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's three times is movable cultural heritage which requires registration under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 41-6 of the Cultural Heritage Management Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Attorney Kim Kim-soo

original decision

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 77No4021 delivered on December 21, 1977

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 61 (3) of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act (Article 68 (4) of the former Protection of Cultural Properties Act) provides that a person who, without permission, transfers, acquires, transports, or takes custody of any excavated or altered cultural heritage with or without compensation, and Article 70 (10) of the same Act provides that the owner of cultural heritage belonging to movable property shall register it in the Culture Gazette as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among tangible cultural heritage or tangible folklore materials not designated by the Protection of Cultural Properties Act, and Article 61 (3) of the same Act provides that if the owner fails to do so, Article 61 (3) of the same Act provides that the cultural heritage is excavated without permission or the alteration of the current state is made in violation of Article 42 of the same Act, and Article 70 subparagraph 10 of the same Act provides that the court below's decision that the defendant is not guilty of the facts charged without any evidence being found out that there is no lack of evidence to acknowledge that the cultural heritage was acquired by the defendant or transferred it without permission, and there is no reason to find that the court below's decision that there is no evidence to acknowledge that it is one third party.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Articles 390, 399, and 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Hah-hoo (Presiding Justice)

arrow