Cases that do not constitute a crime of excavating buried cultural properties under Article 61 of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act.

Since the cultural heritage stipulated in Article 61 of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act refers to a buried cultural heritage which is buried under the ground and is used in a breath, it cannot be deemed that some buried stone is buried, and thus, it shall not be an object of the crime of excavation of buried cultural heritage.

Articles 61(1) and 61(2) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 74No713 decided September 8, 77.9

The part against Defendant 3 in the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeals by Defendant 1 and 2 are all dismissed.

(1) Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the first instance court that maintained the original judgment, the defendant 3 recognized the fact that the defendant, at around 74.1.2:16:00, was found to have discovered two points (No. 2 and No. 3) of the above cultural heritage (No. 2 and No. 61.2.1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act), which is the same cultural property under the management of the defendant in his/her jurisdiction, was used in part in the forest under his/her jurisdiction.

However, the crime of excavation under the same Act is established with respect to buried cultural properties, and it means dancing, so it cannot be seen as burial without being buried under the ground. However, since the original market price is used for a part of the 2nd Gun's seat, it is clear that it is not possible to regard the original market price as being buried under its own, and the network site of the Gun's seat is putting up for a dump before a dump, and it is not necessary in the experience that a dump is not buried under the ground, so it cannot be viewed as being buried on the ground because it has long been buried, and it cannot be viewed as being buried on the ground that a part of the soil has been buried.

Therefore, the original judgment cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion by misapprehending the legal principles on buried cultural heritage, and therefore there is a reasonable ground to discuss, and the original judgment on the defendant is reversed as the original judgment on the defendant is unlawful.

(2) Defendant 1 and 2’s grounds of appeal are consolidated.

The judgment of the first instance court is just in recognizing the facts of the charge against the defendants and applying the law of the instruction, and it is difficult to find that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of tangible cultural heritage or failing to properly understand the legal principles of the reserve for outbound transfer.

All arguments are groundless.

(3) Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)