The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant, who operates C, acquired ownership of the forest land D (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) in Sejong-si, Sejong-si.

In the instant forests and fields, one grave of the grandparent F (Death in 1949) and one grave of the father and father H (Death in 1996) (Death in 196) of the Victim E (Death in 194), and one grave of the instant forests and fields (hereinafter referred to as “the instant grave”).

Around December 2015, the Defendant, who was not the resident of the instant grave, was not the resident of the instant grave, and thus, did not have the right to manage and dispose of the instant grave. In order to conduct the project to develop the forest and fields of the instant grave, the Defendant laid the remains of the instant grave at his own discretion by cutting the grave of this case and duplicating it, and found the instant grave in such a way as to remove the remains in the sewage park and charnel located

2. In light of the following circumstances, the determination of the instant case: (a) the act of excavating a grave of this case, such as the Defendant’s facts charged, due to the mistake of, and not intentionally, an unclaimed grave; and (b) there is a justifiable reason to believe that such mistake was justified.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the act of excavating the grave of this case, such as the defendant's act as stated in the facts charged, was intentional, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Defendant purchased the instant forest land on February 25, 2015.

At the time the Defendant purchased the forest land of this case, the forest land of this case had a grave different from the grave of this case.

The Defendant, as a land owner of the instant forest, was placed in a situation in which the instant grave should be moved to another place in order to implement the clearing project.

Although the Defendant was aware of the fact that the descendants of the instant grave were E during the instant grave and other graves, it was not possible to find E, and there was any difference between what the instant grave related to E intends to move out, and what is different.