beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the following: “A person who has been notified of the fact that his parent’s grave was excavated in advance from the Defendant and gave consent thereto; even if there was a little gap between the Defendant and D in the telephone conversations with respect to a charnel house, the specific date and time of excavation was not determined; and even if there was no discussion with other punishment, D’s consent to the excavation of the grave may not be deemed as having been obtained from D, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was in a state in which the date and time of discovery was not determined; and (b) the Defendant did not consult with other punishment.
2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si C Forest and the Defendant and D are the E smallest staff members with the private villages.
The Defendant decided to move the graves of the E Line to a charnel in the form of a charnel house from among the bells located in Pyeongtaek-si F, including D’s parents graves located in the said forest and field through a meeting.
On May 12, 2012, the Defendant laid off the earth of his parents’ graves using sckes without obtaining D’s consent, who is the person who has the right to manage and dispose of the graves, and laid out the remains buried therein.
Accordingly, the defendant found a grave.
3. The lower court determined on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that “Around March 7, 2012, the Defendant knew of the change of a grave to D by phone calls from the Defendant on or around March 7, 2012, D consented to this Chapter, and told D that “A person scheduled to make a funeral on or around April 9, 2012,” and “A person scheduled to make a funeral on or around May 12, 2012,” and (b) had discussed the change of a funeral for the purpose of continuing a funeral for several years; (c) on March 3, 2012, the Defendant was holding a meeting during the attendance of the representatives of each house; and (c) according to the Defendant’s monetary content, the Defendant was recognized to have called for 15 minutes by phone calls to D on or around March 7, 2012,” and the Defendant’s call as to the said currency.