[1] The time when the commission of an attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage commences

[2] The case holding that the crime of attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage is not established at the stage where the contract was not concluded due to the price reduction for the exporter to sell non-designated cultural heritage to the exporter

[3] Whether the charges charged for attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage can be acknowledged as a crime of preparatory preparation and conspiracy for export of non-designated cultural heritage without modification of an indictment (negative)

[1] In order to establish an offense of attempted exportation of non-designated cultural heritage, an act of close-down and fast-down to the act of taking out non-designated cultural heritage abroad shall be deemed to have commenced such act.

[2] The case holding that an attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage is not established on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that there was an act of adjacent and pushing ahead to the act of taking out abroad at the stage where the contract was not concluded because the exporter was attempted to sell non-designated cultural heritage to the exporter, but failed to reduce the price

[3] The charges charged for attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage cannot be recognized as the crime of preparing for and conspiracying the export of non-designated cultural heritage without modification of the indictment.

[1] Article 25 of the Criminal Act, Articles 80 (2) and 87 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act / [2] Article 25 of the Criminal Act, Articles 80 (2) and 87 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act / [3] Article 28 of the Criminal Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 80 (2) and 87 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 69Do1517 decided Nov. 11, 1969 (No. 17-4, 197)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Han-ho

Daegu High Court Decision 9No116 delivered on May 25, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's counter-indicted 4's name.

2. A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

However, the lower court’s determination that there was no evidence to prove the facts charged of the instant case merely based on the fact that the purchase and sale was not a Japanese person but a Korean person who had been punished by the price reduction on the Defendant’s daily allowance and the cultural properties as indicated in its holding, and that there was no evidence to prove the fact that the purchase and sale was not a sexual intercourse. However, insofar as it is deemed that the commencement of the execution was not reached as seen in the following paragraphs, so-called impossible attempts cannot be established, and such defects do not affect

B. The court below is just in holding that, in order to establish the crime of attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage, the act of close and fasting to the act of taking out non-designated cultural heritage out of the Republic of Korea should be deemed to have been commenced at the time when the act of taking out non-designated cultural heritage was committed. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the commencement of the execution in the crime of attempted export of non-designated cultural heritage, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-designated cultural heritage export of non-designated cultural heritage.

C. In addition, even if the defendant's act constitutes a crime of preliminary or conspiracy for the export of non-designated cultural heritage, as alleged in its assertion, the court below's decision cannot be judged as to the above, since the prosecutor's indictment was not modified. Thus, it cannot be said that the court failed to make a decision without demanding a modification of the indictment.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)