The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of six months.

Defendant

A.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The defendant A (1) is erroneous, and the defendant excavated a grave with the consent of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of T.

② Even if the intention is recognized, the illegality of the Defendant’s act is dismissed as long as the Defendant found the dead body for the religious and customary good order.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) It seems that there has been discussions about the relocation of seedlings in the clans at the time.

However, it was difficult to establish a specific relocation plan because the site to move a grave was not determined and the subsequent descendants did not reach an agreement (the trial record 124-125 pages). The Defendant asked to transfer a grave by calling to N in T Jong-gu N around May 7, 2017. The Defendant respondeded to the purport that he could not easily make a decision on this issue, and the Defendant did not contact with the Defendant (the investigation record 87:586 pages, the trial record 128-129 page). The consistent statement that the Defendant did not have consented to the excavation of a grave is consistent with the aforementioned objective circumstances at the time.

② From among the 14-round graves excavated by the Defendant, only one grave managed by N in TW head of TW relatives (the 122th page of the trial record). AU-affiliated president AV managed 7-round graves (the 11th page of the investigation record), and the Defendant appears to have known such circumstances and tried to obtain AV’s consent (the 617-618th page of the investigation record). In view of the relationship between the two graves, the Defendant’s assertion that the aforementioned 14-round grave was not problematic since N’s consent was obtained.