(a) Whether a cultural heritage excavated from the seabed constitutes a tangible cultural heritage of domestic origin;

B. Whether the act of transferring cultural heritage constitutes an act of false punishment after the act of acquiring it

A. Under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, "Korea" was deleted from among the definitions of tangible cultural heritage under Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Act No. 2233, Aug. 10, 1970) and Article 43 was added to "sea" that did not exist under the former Act, even if the provisions of the report on discovery of buried cultural heritage under Article 43 were added to "sea", the defendant's 14th century, China (Songsan, Cheongsan, Cheongsan), Cheongdok and Cheongdok, the owner of the above tangible cultural heritage is a tangible cultural heritage which was buried under the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

B. The act of acquiring and transferring cultural properties in violation of each of the provisions stipulated in the Protection of Cultural Properties Act is not an act subsequent to the act of acquiring cultural properties by satisfying separate elements.

(a) Article 2 Subparag. 1 and Article 42 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Act No. 2233, Aug. 10, 1970); Article 2(1)1 and Article 43(b) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 82(3);

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Hadon, Shoeng

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No5922 delivered on January 28, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was in force at the time of this case, the term "tangible cultural properties" means buildings, books, ancient documents, paintings, sculptures, crafts and other kinds of cultural works of high historical or artistic value in the Republic of Korea, and other high-tech cultural assets equivalent thereto. According to Articles 42 and 43 of the same Act, if the owner, manager, or possessor of the land or other objects discovered cultural properties packed in the land or objects, he/she shall report the discovery to the Minister of Culture and Art, and the owner, manager of the land or objects thereof shall obtain permission from the Minister of Culture and Art. 14th century. According to evidence of the first instance court as cited by the court below, the former 14th century was manufactured in China (definite and won) and the former 1st century amended 4th century as well as the former 3th anniversary of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties, and thus, the latter 1th century and the new 2th Cheongjun.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

Article 61(3) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act provides that a person who transfers, acquires, or keeps cultural heritage excavated or excavated in the current state with or without consideration in violation of the preceding paragraph (2) (Prohibition against the Excavation of or changing the current state of cultural heritage buried without permission) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding one million won. According to Articles 7 and 16 of the same Act, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism may designate important cultural heritage as movable property or national treasures after consultation with the Cultural Heritage Committee. In urgent cases, the said cultural heritage may be provisionally designated as important cultural heritage. According to Articles 20, 20-2, 23, 41-2 and 3. According to the above provisions of Article 56-2 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the owner, holder, custodian, or the head of a related cultural property office may not remove or transfer the cultural heritage from the designated place of the cultural heritage without approval of the above designated cultural heritage or to the effect that the act of transferring it cannot be seen as an act of acquiring or controlling the cultural heritage from the designated purpose of Article 415 of the same Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)