2015, 168 Violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act

A

Writtenity (prosecutions and public trials)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

June 25, 2015

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000. Where the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

No one shall alter the current state of State-designated cultural heritage without permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, from May 28, 2012 to March 3, 2012, the Defendant constructed a new building for the inspection of the State-designated cultural heritage in D Protection Zone, which is located in Chuncheon City, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities. Accordingly, the Defendant changed the current state of D Protection Zone, which is State-designated cultural heritage, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Voluntary written statements of E preparation;

1. A written accusation, a field photograph of the offense, and a criminal investigation report (the details of confirmation of the other party of the accusation);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 99(1)1 and 35(1)1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the existing temple that was destroyed by fire was restored to the same level, so it cannot be viewed as changing the present state of D protected zones, which are State-designated cultural properties, and ② the construction is carried out without confirming whether it was permitted by the competent authorities, but there was no intention to commit the crime.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the argument duly adopted and the evidence duly examined by this court: ① Inspection conducted through construction has changed its form, such as the increase in the area of the previous 46 meters, the increase in the legal grounds, and the new construction of warehouses; ② The form of inspection has changed, and the type of the D protection zone, which is State-designated cultural properties, has changed, the defendant was in the desire to start the inspection work according to the Taltan (In April 1) and the construction act without accurately ascertaining whether permission has been granted to the competent government office; thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant changed the current state of State-designated cultural properties D protection zone without permission from the competent government office; and at least there was negligence on the part of the defendant at the time, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant has old age, etc.; however, the defendant does not repent of his mistake while denying the crime; in light of the need to preserve State-designated cultural properties, the nature of the crime of this case is not less weak; the defendant does not sentence more severe punishment than that of the summary order in this case where the defendant requested formal trial against the summary order; the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and motive, means, and consequence leading to the crime of this case; the defendant's motive, means, and consequence of the crime of this case; the punishment shall be determined as ordered in light of all the circumstances constituting the conditions for the punishment specified in the records and arguments of this case

Judges Cho Jong-sung