Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall alter the current state of State-designated cultural heritage by repairing, maintaining, restoring, preserving, or removing State-designated cultural heritage, protective facilities, or protection zones without permission from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration.

Nevertheless, from October 2018 to November 27, 2018, the Defendant removed part of the State-designated cultural properties by removing the outer wall and the sloping wall, which is State-designated cultural properties, from Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-do, for cultivation. In order to cultivate, the Defendant removed part of the State-designated cultural properties.

Accordingly, the defendant changed the present state of State-designated cultural properties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The accusation book, the ledger of City/Do-designated cultural heritage, each field photo, the written opinion, the investigation report (on-site investigation, etc. of the Cdesignated Area), the investigation report (Attachment to the contents of the E News Broadcasting), and

1. The application of the 112 reported case handling table, inquiry of fact-finding statement (E), C basic academic research report, field photographs and excavation investigation photographs, summary excavation and summary report, and the statutes governing the current status of C cultural heritage of private No. 48 of the Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment therefor under Articles 99 (1) 1 and 35 (1) 1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act

1. Although it is recognized that the defendant was taken out of the argument, the defendant did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, since the sexual bricks in C and C around C were different from that of State-designated cultural heritage.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., the Defendant transferred the instant site to the police, knowing that the instant site was a c brick.