The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, who buried in the “D” cemetery located in Seopo-si, Sinpo-si, intended to bury remains by selling the deceased E and Sinpo-si’s funeral graves, which are the deceased’s parents graves, and reported the reburial of remains on December 2, 2015, and attempted to excavate the deceased E and Sin-si’s funeral in around March 2016. However, there was a fact that H, I, J, and K, including G, who were the children of the deceased E, E, and Sinpo-si, suspended excavation against this.

Despite the opposition of the co-inheritors, including the presiding official of the deceased E and the deceased F, the Defendant arbitrarily excavated the seedlings of the deceased E and the deceased F on February 15, 2017 and buried the remains, and then buried the remains in the second memorial room L of the Gyeyang Park at Jeju 516, 2819-31.

Accordingly, the defendant found a grave without legitimate authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police statement made to H and G;

1. A relocation report and accompanying documents;

1. An investigation report (to hear statements from the counter party of the M funeral N) ;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the illegality of the act of excavating a grave is excluded, on the premise that P, a defendant's child, is in the status of a resident of the company, after he died in September 2012, the investigation report (including family drawing up) [the defendant and his defense counsel] (the deceased head E, the husband of the defendant's husband)] (the defendant and his defense counsel found the grave after obtaining permission from P in the situation where the defendant was in charge of the company's death and punishment.

However, there are special circumstances in which it is impossible to maintain the status of the resident in Australia since from 2007 to 2007, P, the reason why the dispute occurred in relation to the filing of a complaint and the beginning of a punishment between the co-inheritors of the network E and network F, who can be seen by the evidence of the ruling.

On the other hand, deeming that the status of the resident of the company may not be succeeded for the reason that I, Q, G, J, and K, a joint heir whose father and mother are different, or that they only are married to their children, or that they do not have a child.