A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 18, 2014, at the port of the wife population of the Defendant, the Defendant laid the remains of his body, which is the body of the Defendant’s body-type B, etc., in the Gaea Park, which is recently located in the port of the wife population of the Defendant, and found the remains of his body-type C at his own discretion for the purpose of unrefilleding the remains of his body-type C, which is the body-type B, etc., of his relatives.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing grave excavation-related photographs and video CDs;

1. Article 160 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The offense of excavation of a grave under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, which is subject to the punishment where a person without any authority over the grave finds the grave without permission, and where the grave is excavated without permission against the religious order of the body even if such person has authority, shall be subject to the punishment;

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged comprehensively by the evidence in the judgment, i.e., (i) the Defendant did not have access to the instant grave since around 2006 and had no access to the network C and for more than 30 years, the Defendant, who was unable to contact with the Defendant at the time of the death of the network C, had no authority to independently manage the deceased grave through consultation with B, etc., and (ii) the Defendant did not take appropriate procedures such as obtaining consent to the relocation of the grave to B, etc. who was in charge of the deceased grave at the time of moving the grave, the Defendant’s act of moving the instant grave without consultation with B, which was regarded as an act against the religious order.

The reason for sentencing was that the defendant, without any contact with B, etc. who managed the instant grave, moved the grave to another place, and even after a considerable period from the date of the crime, did not inform B, etc. of the location of the grave until the expiration of the considerable period of time. The nature of the crime is.