beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, R, the main agent of D, G, and F, has not consented to the discovery of a grave by the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the illegality of each of the graves of this case is dismissed on the premise that the defendant discovered each of the graves of this case with R's approval. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. Around October 29, 2018, the Defendant excavated three graves buried in the remains of D (one’s name E), F, and G (one’s name H) in which C, etc. had been stationed and managed in a 63,462 square meters of forest land B, Hanam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, without permission from C, etc., around October 29, 2018.
B. The lower court held that R, as the principal agent of D, G, and F, has the right to manage and dispose of each of the above graves, and the Defendant above.
Ga, each of the graves located above the forest land in the port.
Before discovering as stated in the foregoing paragraph, R has agreed to do so, the Defendant: (a) obtained the consent of R having the right to manage and dispose of each of the above graves; and (b) deemed that the instant facts charged did not constitute a crime due to lack of illegality; and (c) determined that the instant facts charged did not constitute a crime due to lack of illegality.
On May 17, 2019, the court below stated to the effect that the circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e.,: (a) R prepared a confirmation document stating that “the defendant consented in advance to, and delegated all, the authority to, the instant grave to, the defendant; and (b) R testified to the same purport in the court of the court of the court below; and (c) the investigative agency stated to the effect that “the defendant filed a complaint with the other victims; and (d) the defendant did not receive text messages to, relocate the grave from, the defendant.” However, the court of the court of the court below did not have any choice but to file a complaint by asserting that she should file a complaint against the defendant.