beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
around 10:00 on February 26, 2016, in order to trade the above soil owned by the Defendant in the distribution company in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, the Defendant managed the graves owned by the Defendant each year by anyone or D, and opened the graves owned by his father-gu in Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, by discovering the Defendant before putting his/her photo, and stored the said graves in the Defendant’s house located in FF and B204.
Accordingly, the defendant found a grave.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police against D;
1. A criminal investigation report (on-site conditions, etc.) and photographs attached thereto;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes notifying departments related to 112 reporting of the case;
1. According to Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts, the defendant was the first offender with no record of crime, and prepared a tomb on the land owned by him. In the process of selling the land where the above tomb exists, he was unable to sell the land by compensating the other party for a considerable amount of compensation, and he was found to have excavated a tomb to fulfill his obligations against the other party to the contract under the land sales contract, and the body of the early being excavated was handed over to the other party to the contract, and the defendant was expressed his opinion that he was divided into his wrong facts in this court and expressed his opinion. However, there were no circumstances to consider the defendant, such as the defendant's arbitrary discovery of the body of a pro-car for the purpose of economic benefit or prevention of damage, but the defendant was found to have arbitrarily discovered the body of his relative, who was not the other party to the contract, and caused the third party to enjoy the grave without permission by leaving his body in his residence for a more than one month thereafter, and the defendant was sufficiently aware of the circumstances leading the crime of this case.
It is difficult to see, even until the judgment of this case is pronounced.