Defendant 1 and three others

Both parties

Colonel, and in the case of a trial, the prosecution and prosecution;

Law Firm Barun et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Gohap40 decided August 12, 2016

All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for a period of four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for a period of three years for defendants 3, respectively.

Defendant 4 Incorporated Foundation shall be punished by a fine of KRW 50,000,000.

Defendant 4 may order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine on the incorporated foundation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles [the relation to the damage of forest standing timber in the area "A" (hereinafter referred to as "A") in attached Form 1 of the original judgment attached]

In the instant zone No. 1, 2009, a considerable number of pine trees recovered from the forest land restored around February 2, 2009 are naturally dead, and the Defendants do not cut as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. Moreover, it is impossible to specify the quantity and value of trees cut or removed over a prolonged period of not less than five years at the present time. As such, it cannot be deemed that the size of the damaged forest reaches or exceeds 5,000 square meters.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants [the sentence of Defendant 1, Defendant 2: three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, Defendant 3: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, three years of suspended execution, and Defendant 4 Incorporated Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”): fine of KRW 50 million] is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) As to the damage to forest standing timber in an area A with the attached old map attached to the lower judgment (hereinafter referred to as “Class B”).

In full view of the fact that the instant zone ② also was found guilty of damage to forest standing timber in the lower court, as in the instant zone No. 1, the entire removal of trees and their shapes are similar to the cemetery only remaining, and there is no difference in the growth conditions between pine trees and glue tree, and that there is sufficient motive for the Defendants to damage standing timber in order to create graveyard as to the instant zone No. 2, the fact that the Defendants cut standing timber in the instant zone No. 2 and damaged it can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B) Regarding the installation of an unauthorized cemetery

The act of installing a grave by burying an individual body shall be deemed an act of establishing a cemetery. The act of installing a cemetery of this case constitutes a single and continuous crime committed under the single and continuous criminal intent to open a corporate cemetery in the same cemetery with the same ○ ○ Do, and thus the statute of limitations is in progress from the time of establishing the cemetery. Accordingly, the case was finally prosecuted before the statute of limitations expires.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (as to the damage of forest standing trees in the instant case No. 1)

1) The judgment of the court below

The Defendants asserted to the same purport as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendants could have acknowledged the fact that the Defendants damaged the forest of the instant area No. 1-A as stated in the judgment below.

① From February 209, trees, in the surrounding forest and natural fields restored along with the forest of the instant zone No. 1, are normally growing, as well as pine trees, which appears to have been planted at certain intervals in Zone A around 2012, are not so dead up to now. In light of these circumstances, even though the possibility of planting pine trees in Zone A is low, pine trees recovered around February 2009 are rarely remaining in Zone A, and there are only pine trees 256, which appears to have been planted around May 2012.

② Since around 2009, ○○○○ had created a corporate cemetery and installed a grave in Zone A, and even thereafter, a new grave has been continuously installed. As such, there was sufficient motive for removing pine trees and seedlings naturally planted in Zone A and naturally.

③ As for masttoma, there is no obstacle at all to cut trees, such as fluorous trees, fluorum trees, and fluorum trees, and rather, it would help grow standing trees. Nonindicted Co. 1 collected soil and sand in a zone adjoining to Zone ① from July 1999 to June 2001, and recovered soil and sand at a place for gathering earth and sand around January 2004, and received a notice of completion of restoration from the racing’s viewing. After that, Nonindicted Co. 2, the Defendant foundation’s director, from August 2004 to June 2005, it is difficult to gather 11,600 square meters [10,728 square meters] out of the forest land (1 omitted] from August 204 to June 205, it is difficult to find out 1500 marine trees for the purpose of forming a cemetery from the Daegu District Court without permission, and in light of the fact that the Defendants were sentenced to suspension of the execution of 150 years from the mountain land.

④ The Defendants, on May 2012, purchased 1,00 pine trees from around 1,00 to around 200 to around May 1, 2012, submitted the confirmation document of Nonindicted 3’s completion by asserting that the majority of the aforementioned confirmation document was natural dead. However, it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted 3 supplied 1,00 pine trees at the forest restoration site in around 2012 (number 1 omitted) and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the said 1,00 pine trees were used in the restoration of the zone A. Moreover, it is difficult to recognize that the said 1,00 pine trees were used in the restoration of the zone A. In addition, it is difficult to determine that the remaining pine trees were planted at a certain interval of 256 mar trees newly planted at around 256 mar, and that the remaining pine trees were naturally dead.

⑤ In light of the fact that pine trees restored from around February 2009 to around February 1, 2009 are deemed to have been intentionally damaged for the purpose of installing and managing corporate cemetery, according to the airlinejin and Guide map, the area No. 1 is specified to the extent that it can be distinguished from neighboring forests and fields. The pine trees of 256 that were born at regular intervals within the zone No. 1 is deemed to have been planted around May 2012. Furthermore, even if the pine trees of the above 256 were planted in the course of restoring forests around February 2009, even if they were planted in the course of restoring forests, they can be deemed to have damaged the entire area of the damaged forest area (i.e., 1,140 square meters) exceeding the damaged forest area as stipulated in Article 9(1)2 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2) The judgment of this Court

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant Foundation purchased the forest land of this case for the purpose of graveyard creation on November 5, 2001. From around around 1, 2001, the body and remains were buried in ○○ Do. After that, Nonindicted 4 of the Defendant Foundation was punished as having cut down 52,70 square meters of forest including the instant zone ① and diverted the mountainous district, and there was no ground for the lower court’s determination that the Defendants continued to be aware of the remaining remains in the burial ground of burial ground of this case, and thus, it was difficult to view that the remaining remaining burial ground of this case, other than the instant zone, had been developed within the burial ground of this case, and there was no violation of the law regarding the remaining burial ground of this case’s remaining burial ground of this case’s restoration from around 201 to the burial ground of this case’s new burial ground of this case’s remaining remaining burial ground of this case’s expiration.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

1) Regarding damage to forest standing trees in the instant zone B

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

○ Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Forest) by Defendants 1, 2, and 3

No person shall damage or withering standing timber in a forest without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, from May 2, 2009 to November 7, 2014, had human father cut 10,728 square meters of forest land (number 1 omitted) at the market price of KRW 44,100,000 and KRW 900 of forest tree, respectively.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to damage standing timber in the forest without good cause.

○ Violation of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act by Defendant Foundation

Defendant 1, who is an employee of the Defendant at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, conspired with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, thereby damaging standing timber in the forest without justifiable grounds by having the Defendant perform the aforementioned acts.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the Defendants intentionally damaged the forest of the instant zone No. 2, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

C) The judgment of this Court

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the lower court’s judgment that determined otherwise based on the above conclusion is not acceptable, since the Defendants could fully recognize the fact that they damaged forest standing timber in the instant area Class B, as stated in this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is

① On November 5, 2001, Defendant Foundation purchased forest land of this case for graveyard creation.

② After the purchase of the instant forest land, the burial of remains, etc. from around 2001 to the ground in the instant zone ②. In the process, Nonindicted 2, as the director of the Defendant Foundation, extracted 1,500 pine trees from the underground, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months from the Daegu District Court and the suspension of execution for 2 years from the Daegu District Court racing support, and was sentenced to the suspension of execution for 900 pine trees and 900 pine trees from the said area on May 19, 2009 (Evidence records 45,63 pages).

③ Meanwhile, in the instant zone ②, the instant zone had already been installed with the 421 grave installed prior to obtaining the aforementioned approval for recovery, and the remains of ○○○ New Road continued to be buried until around October 2010.

④ According to the satellite photograph, etc. of the instant zone ②, in the instant zone ②, the depth at the time of May 2009, did not have any entirety of the trees, such as skumkum, skumkum, etc., and shows a clear outline of the area as a flat partitioned for a certain purpose. On the other hand, in the vicinity of the instant zone, standing timber is growing normally.

⑤ Inasmuch as the Defendants intended to create a cemetery in the instant zone No. 1, as in the instant zone No. 2, there is sufficient motive or reason to cut down the mountain dried tree, etc. planted in the said zone (in this respect, even if the Defendants acknowledged the act of damaging standing timber in the instant zone No. 1, it is difficult to obtain in light of the empirical rule that the Defendants did not perform any act that would hinder the growth of standing timber, etc. only for the instant zone No. 2, which is similar to the time when the restoration was completed.

④ According to the testimony of Non-Indicted 5 of the witness at the trial and the fact-finding on the racing market at this court, the instant zone ② is a forest where a restoration order was issued due to forest damage at a similar time as in the instant zone 1, and there is no big difference in the growth environment of standing timber in the marina area that is helpful for the growth of the forest, since all adjacent areas are drained well, and the relevant zone is a tree approved as a standing tree for the recovery of mountainous district in each of the instant zones from the Si of the racing. From 2009 to 2014, there is no big difference in the active rate among the standing timber in accordance with the results of the survey conducted on the basis of North Korea.

7) Even if, as alleged by the Defendants, a part of the tree, etc. planted in the mountain site Nos. 2, were cut down, such act was buried in the mountain site Nos. 2 prior to obtaining the approval of restoration from the said area, and not only formed conditions that make it difficult for the Defendant to grow standing timber due to continued burial of remains, etc., or for graveyard management, but also intentionally neglected the management of the standing timber interfered with the creation of the cemetery. As such, it is recognized that the Defendants had sufficient cause.

2) Regarding the installation of an unauthorized cemetery

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

○ Violation of the Funeral Services, etc. Act by Defendants 1, 2, and 3

Any person who intends to establish and manage a corporate cemetery shall obtain permission from the Mayor, etc.

Nevertheless, on March 26, 2001, the Defendants, without permission, put the land in the forest (number 1 omitted) such as scrails and inserted, put the land into the forest by which Nonindicted 6’s body was buried, and then buried the body of Nonindicted 6’s body by covering the soil in a smooth manner after covering it.

From the above to November 7, 2014, Defendants conspired to establish a corporate cemetery with 1,040 period as shown in Appendix II attached to the lower judgment on the forest (number 1 omitted) and forest (number 2 omitted) as well as (number 1 omitted) forest.

○ Violation of the Funeral Services, etc. Act by Defendant Foundation

Defendant 1, who is an employee of the Defendant at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, conspired with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 to perform the above acts in connection with the Defendant’s business, and thereby, established a corporate cemetery without permission.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court: (a) deemed that the crime of violating the Funeral Services, etc. Act due to the establishment of an unauthorized corporate cemetery was established and completed at the time of completion of the “establishment of a corporate cemetery”; (b) the statute of limitations as an immediate crime established and completed from the time of completion of the “establishment of a corporate cemetery”; and (c) deemed that the act of establishing a corporate cemetery constitutes an act of completing preparation for use of a grave by creating a site for a specific corporate cemetery; (d) the site was created around January 2010 in the instant forest and field and the installation of each unauthorized corporate cemetery was completed; and (e) the instant public prosecution was acquitted of this part of the charges on the ground that the statute of limitations has lapsed for three or five years after the completion of each of the said establishment

C) The judgment of this Court

(1) Relevant provisions

○ former Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (Amended by Act No. 13660, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

6. The term "burial" means a facility for burial of a corpse or remains;

7. The term " cemetery" means an area where a grave is established;

13. The term "natural burial ground" means an area where a natural burial ground may be performed;

Article 14 (Establishment, etc. of Private Cemeteries) (1) A person, other than the State, a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, may establish and manage a private cemetery classified as follows (hereinafter referred to as "private cemetery"):

4. Corporate cemetery: A cemetery in which a juristic person installs, within the same cemetery space, graves of many and unspecified persons.

(3) A person who intends to establish and manage a family cemetery, a clan cemetery, or a corporate cemetery shall obtain permission from the head of the competent Si, etc. having jurisdiction over the relevant cemetery, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The same shall also apply where he/she intends to

(6) Matters necessary for the establishment and area of private cemeteries, types of graves, places of installation, standards for installation, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 18 (Size, etc. of Graveyards) (1) The area of one grave within a public cemetery, family cemetery, clan, or corporate cemetery, and the area of a zone in which facilities, such as tombstones and tombstones, are installed shall not exceed 10 square meters (15 square meters in cases of a tombstones).

(2) No private cemetery shall exceed 30 square meters.

(3) The height of a charnel grave among charnel facilities shall not exceed 70 centimeters and the area of a charnel grave per unit shall not exceed 2 square meters.

(4) Matters concerning the types, size, etc. of facilities, such as tombstones, tombstones, tombstones, etc., which may be installed per flag of a tomb, charnel grave, or charnel tower shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree

○ Enforcement Decree of the former Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27468, Aug. 26, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 15 (Standards for Establishment of Private Cemeteries) The standards for installation of private cemeteries, such as the size of installation, types of graves, locations of installation, etc. under Article 14 (6) of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 2.

[Attachment 2]

4. Corporate cemeteries:

(a) The area of a corporate cemetery shall be at least 100,000 square meters;

(b) The shape of a grave shall be enclosed or flated, and the height of the shape of the grave shall not exceed one meter from the ground and the height of the flat shall not exceed 50 centimeters;

(c) Corporate cemeteries shall be installed in places where there is no risk of collapse or erosion, taking into account topography, drainage, soil, etc.

(d) In the case of a corporate cemetery, a road the width of which is at least five meters and a sufficient entrance road from such road to each grave shall be installed and parking lots shall be prepared;

(e) At the bottom of a valley or a steep slope station and drainage channel of at least 30 degrees in a cemetery zone, erosion land or water storage meters capable of reducing the speed of outflow and outflow of earth and sand shall be installed;

(f) At least 20/100 of the area excluding incidental facilities, such as parking lots, management facilities, etc., among the areas permitted for corporate cemeteries shall be secured as green space: Provided, That at least 10/100 of the area shall be secured as green space in cases of flats created in turf;

(1) Facilities that may be installed per grave, charnel grave, or charnel tower pursuant to Article 18 (4) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. One seat (the height shall not exceed two meters from the ground, and the surface shall not exceed three square meters for the ground);

2. One standing stone;

3. Other stone shall be one or both (the height thereof shall not exceed two meters from the ground): Provided, That no two-meters shall be installed.

○ Enforcement Rule of the Funeral Services Act

(1) A person who intends to obtain permission to establish a family cemetery, a clan cemetery, or a corporate cemetery shall submit an application in attached Form 5, accompanied by the following documents, to the competent Mayor, etc. pursuant to the former part of Article 14 (3) of the Act. In such cases, where the Mayor, etc. can verify the information of the attached documents by sharing administrative information pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the Electronic Government Act, such confirmation shall substitute for the attached documents:

3. Corporate cemetery:

(a) Articles of incorporation, inventory, and list of executives of the corporation;

(b) Deleted.

(c) Surveying map and soil quality survey report;

(d) Documents attesting that the cemetery or land to be used is owned by a corporation;

(e) A management and operation plan, including cemetery development project cost, funding plan and disaster countermeasures;

(f) Infrastructure plans, such as water supply and sewerage systems, landscaping, telecommunications, roads, and disaster prevention facilities;

(g) A plan for building a cemetery and a work plan, and a plan for building major facilities within a cemetery (including a layout plan, a ground plan, and a structural map);

(2) Specific determination

According to the above relevant provisions, “a cemetery”, which is distinguished from a natural burial ground, is defined as the premise for the establishment of a tomb, and a certain installation requirement is required in order to install a cemetery with permission from the competent authorities. In particular, in the case of a corporate cemetery, the area should be at least 100,00 square meters, and the entrance route and parking lot should be prepared as a green area, and a certain area must meet the requirements for the establishment of a cemetery. However, in a case where permission is not obtained, a grave may be installed where a corpse or remains can be buried, and any land for burial of a corpse, etc. such as body or remains should be prepared only if it has a tangible and specific form. Thus, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it does not necessarily mean that “a cemetery should be installed” and “the preparation of a tomb by establishing a grave site” is difficult to recognize that a grave site would be installed externally, and thus, an act cannot be seen as an act of installing a grave outside a certain cemetery or an installation of a tomb under Article 18(2)4) of the Enforcement Decree.

In addition, the act of repeatedly installing graves of many and unspecified persons in the same zone without permission is a criminal act that infringes on the same legal interests of protection, such as harm to health and efficient utilization of land, and infringes on the same legal interests, such as efficient use of land, and establishes a grave, by establishing a single site within the same zone without permission. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations is run from the time when the final criminal act ends, that is, when a grave is installed in a corporate cemetery, the act of creating a site for the cemetery and installing a separate grave.

In this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendants purchased the forest of this case for the purpose of creating a cemetery, divided a certain area of the land and prepared a certain area for use of the grave by cutting away standing trees, etc., but did not have any facilities, etc. externally recognizable as a cemetery. Afterwardly, the defendants installed a grave in each of the above areas and installed a sign that can be recognized as a cemetery at all at all. By November 7, 2014, the defendants installed a 1,040 grave as shown in Appendix II attached to the judgment below by November 7, 2014, and had an appearance as a cemetery. In light of the above legal principles, the above facts were found, it cannot be deemed that the defendants completed the installation of a cemetery by setting a certain area for the purpose of building a cemetery, and it cannot be deemed that the defendants completed the installation of a cemetery as a single cemetery after the construction of a grave. The defendants' act of installing a specific area of the forest of this case constitutes a single cemetery.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired, is not acceptable, since it is clearly stated in the record that the prosecution of this case was instituted on August 26, 2015, before five years have passed since November 7, 2014 when the crime was finally terminated, that is, when the last indictment of this case was completed, from November 7, 2014 when the last indictment of this case was completed. Accordingly, the prosecutor's allegation in this part of the grounds for appeal is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable. Thus, without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor, the judgment of the court below against the defendants is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's application for modification of the indictment to add the charges to the charges of violating the Act on Funeral Services, etc. due to burial outside the cemetery area, but the court below accepted the prosecutor's appeal as to the main charges of the establishment of an unauthorized corporate cemetery, and judged the defendant guilty, it is not separately determined as to the above ancillary charges added in the trial.

Defendant 4 Incorporated is a corporation established in around 1960 with the purpose of worship and transfer of ○○ School, which is a religious organization, preservation and management of property, creation and management of graveyards.

Defendant 1 is the chief executive officer of the Foundation from around September 20, 200 to around January 14, 2001, from around December 7, 2002 to May 4, 2005, from around April 2008 to June 201. From around June 201, Defendant 1 is a managing director of the Foundation, who made a decision, direction and consultation on the business with the Federation of the Korea Teachers’ Federation of Korea, with respect to the purchase of graveyard site, the establishment and management of graveyard site, the installation and management of graveyard site, and the provision of budget support.

Defendant 2, from January 1, 1992 to September 1, 2008, is the Vice-Speaker of the ○○ Do National Federation of ○○ Do, who assisted the president in the establishment and management of the corporate cemetery, the funeral procedures, etc., and made a decision, instruction, and consultation with the said foundation. From September 1, 2008 to September 1, 2008, Defendant 2 is the one who performed the same duties as the president of the new federation.

Defendant 3 is the head of the management division of the ○○ Dondo Federation from around 1998 to the end of 2013. From around the end of 2013, Defendant 3 is the head of the management division of the ○○ Dondo National Federation, who has performed duties such as the establishment and management of corporate cemeteries, funeral procedures, etc.

In order to create a corporate cemetery in around 2001, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 purchased a forest in △△△-ri (number 1 omitted) and a forest (number 2 omitted) (hereinafter “forest in 2 omitted”) in the name of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the following: (a) but, (b) there was a public invitation to create a cemetery in the form of a flat-style cemetery with no stone in order to make it difficult for

1. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 1, 2, and 3

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.;

No person shall damage or withering standing timber in a forest without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, from February 9, 2009 to November 7, 2014, had human beings cut 11,408 square meters of forest land (number 1 omitted), and cut 1,400 or more of pine trees (number 1 omitted), from May 2, 2009 to November 7, 2014, 10,728 square meters of forest land (number 1 omitted) and 44,100,000 square meters of forest land (number 1 omitted), respectively.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to damage standing timber in the forest without good cause.

(b) Violation of Mountainous Districts Management Act;

Any person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the Minister of the Korea Forest Service to determine its use.

Nevertheless, the Defendants cut standing timber as stated in the preceding paragraph in forest land (number 1 omitted) and, on May 3, 2009, without permission, had human father put the land into a brue and a box containing the body of Nonindicted Party 7 who sold the land in the brue and mix, etc., and installed a grave by marding the soil in a smooth manner after covering it.

From that time to November 7, 2014, the Defendants conspired to convert the use of mountainous districts by installing 141 graves in each of the aforesaid forests and fields, as shown in Appendix I attached to the lower judgment, as shown in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

(c) Violation of the Funeral Services Act;

Any person who intends to establish and manage a corporate cemetery shall obtain permission from the Mayor, etc.

Nevertheless, on March 26, 2001, the Defendants, without permission, had the human father buried the body of Nonindicted 6 in a forest (number 1 omitted) in the same manner as the written in the preceding paragraph.

From the above to November 7, 2014, Defendants conspired to establish a corporate cemetery with 1,040 period as shown in Appendix II attached to the lower judgment on the forest (number 1 omitted) and forest (number 2 omitted) as well as (number 1 omitted) forest.

2. Violation of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and violation of the Funeral Services, etc. Act by Defendant 4 foundation.

Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant, in collusion with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), caused damage to standing timber in the forest without justifiable grounds by doing any of the above acts in connection with the Defendant’s business, and used mountainous districts for conversion without permission, and established a corporate cemetery.

The gist of the evidence recognized by this court is as follows: “1. Nonindicted 5’s trial statement at the trial of the political party” and “1......, the fact inquiry results on the current trial racing market” are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3: Article 9(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 74(1)5 of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to forest standing trees), Article 53 Subparag. 1 and Article 14(1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of unauthorized Conversion of Mountainous Districts, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 39 Subparag. 1 and 14(3) of the former Funeral Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of installing a corporate cemetery without permission, and the choice of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant Foundation: Articles 78 and 74(1)5 (a) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act; Articles 56, 53 subparag. 1, and 14(1) (a) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act; Articles 41, 39 subparag. 1, and 14(3) (a) of the former Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (a point of installation of a corporate cemetery without permission);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of crimes in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Forest) with the largest punishment)

(b) Defendant Foundation: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act.

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant Foundation: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, Defendant 1 is the chief director or the managing director of the ○○ Doc Group. Defendant 2 is the vice-chairperson or the managing director of the ○○ Doc Group. Defendant 3, as the chief or the managing director of the ○○ Doc Group, in collusion with the said Defendants, damaged the standing timber in the instant area, and installed and managed a grave in the said area, thereby diverting mountainous district without permission, and installing the 1,040 corporate cemetery in the instant forest and field without permission. Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant foundation, committed each of the offenses by having Defendant 1 do the above acts with regard to his duties. In light of the size of the forest and field damaged by the Defendants’ act, the quantity of standing timber, the period of the crime, the period of the crime, and the details of the crime, and even when Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 were punished for diversion of mountainous district without permission, it also led to unfavorable circumstances to each of the Defendants.

On the other hand, the remaining Defendants except the Defendant Foundation did not have any history of having been sentenced to punishment exceeding the suspension of execution. In particular, Defendant 3 has no history of criminal punishment except for those sentenced once to a fine in 1999; Defendant 1 finished the procedure of permission for graveyard creation by acquiring the designation of the joint cemetery facilities from the Si on October 6, 2016 and the specific authorization of the implementation plan for the joint cemetery creation; Defendant 3 appears to have performed its role in accordance with the direction of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 on the command line as the working-level officer; Defendant 3 made efforts to restore damaged forests by obtaining the permission for completion of restoration from the Si on April 2015 and deposit the warranty bond; Defendant Foundation made efforts to restore the damaged forest to its original state; and above all, Defendant 3, in the appellate trial, made practical completion of the procedure of permission, and thereby, became favorable to the Defendant.

As above, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s age, character, conduct and environment, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, degree of participation in the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered as favorable or unfavorable to the Defendants, and the sentencing conditions as set forth in the argument of the instant case are determined as follows.

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) According to Appendix II attached to the lower judgment, the store began from March 26, 2001.

Note 2) As shown in Appendix II attached to the judgment of the court below, the remainder after the 12th of May 21, 2009 out of the total of 433 days deposited or removed in the instant Class B zone, except for the total of 433 days deposited or removed.

3) In addition, if Nonindicted 2’s damage to the forest of the instant zone and the soil had already been formed disadvantageous to the growth, as argued by the Defendants, it is difficult to view that the Defendants completed the obligation to restore the forest to the original state only by planting standing timber in the said zone and completing the restoration work. At least, it is consistent with the concept of restoration to the original state to manage even if no more artificial management is available (the completion of the restoration work should be thoroughly carried out, and the repair of defects should be ordered immediately in the event there is any defects). Therefore, if the Defendants neglected that they were given the duty to manage the standing timber after the completion of the restoration work of the instant zone, and caused the death of standing timber, barring any special circumstance that it is entirely impossible to grow standing timber, this can be deemed as the “person who damaged or killed standing timber, etc.” as stipulated in the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (On the other hand, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the instant zone cannot be seen as a zone where standing timber cannot be cultivated).

4) Each of the instant offenses does not apply to the sentencing criteria set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee.