beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, even if it is unclear who is the deceased or the owner or manager of a grave remains as the object of the crime of excavation of a grave, even if the defendant was unaware of who was the deceased and the deceased, the establishment of the crime does not affect the establishment of the crime even though he was unaware of the family head with respect to the deceased D's grave. While the defendant was aware of the fact that he had no authority over the deceased D's grave, he entered into the contract with F and F without making the minimum effort to find the family head's heir, and prepared and delivered a written consent for the burial of the grave including the deceased D's grave, while entering into the contract with F and F without any authority over the deceased's grave, and F stated that the defendant was informed of this fact at the time of the excavation of the grave from the investigative agency to the original trial, and thus, the defendant could not be held liable as the indirect principal offender for the act of excavation of the grave, and thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the person who was the owner of the land E when C had a d’s grave with a view to protecting and serving as a family heir.
On September 6, 2008, the Defendant drafted a sales contract with F, which is a collection business entity of earth and stone, on the said land, and entered into a special agreement with F, stating that “any obstacle existing on a trade site (such as a cemetery and tombstone) shall be removed from a seller’s responsibility,” and prepared a written consent to the relocation of the grave with the same content.
However, the defendant is only the inheritor of the five graves other than D's graves on the above land, and he did not have the right to excavate or dispose of D's graves because he was not the inheritor of D's family.
Nevertheless, the defendant around September 7, 201 was FD.