Since the legal interest in the excavation of a grave harms the public morals of religious sentiment, "B", which excavated the grave against the will of "A" managing the grave of a mother, constitutes a crime even if the grave were to be born by his/her mother (hereinafter referred to as "B").

Since the legal interest in the excavation of a grave harms the public morals of religious sentiment, "B", which excavated a grave against the will of "A" who manages the funeral of a decedent, constitutes a crime even if the funeral of the decedent (the body of the decedent), even though the funeral of the decedent (the body of the decedent), is also a crime.

Article 160 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 70No765 decided August 17, 1971

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Jeonju District Public Prosecutor's Office shall be considered as grounds for appeal.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant's deceased mother was married with the non-indicted 1 of April 26, 199Na and delivered birth of the defendant and died on April 9, 1932, and the non-indicted 2 delivered birth of the non-indicted 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and that the non-indicted 2 was found not guilty on the ground that the defendant found the grave to be transported to a good place because he was in his old mother's graveyard before about nine years, and that the defendant was in his old mother's burial and management. However, the non-indicted 2 did not open the grave due to the disturbance of the non-indicted 2 and returned to the non-indicted 2 for five days, and that the fact was not for the purpose of opening the remains of the defendant's old mother's body and that there was no criminal intent to commit a crime.

However, as the court below acknowledged that the deceased's life and the defendant's life and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and that the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and injury of the grave are bound by religious appraisal, it cannot be viewed as excluding illegality because the defendant's death and injury of the grave is against the defendant's will at least the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and the defendant's death and injury of the grave cannot be viewed as excluding the so-called "the defendant's death and injury of the grave." Thus,

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court judges (Presiding Judge) Jinwon Jinbabrihn