The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

It is reasonable to regard the seat of the lower court’s judgment on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties as “cultural heritage” under the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties as important materials that can examine the dead person’s object at the time of changing funeral culture in the past and changing funeral culture.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the above stone is not a cultural property, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The part of the crime of acquiring stolen goods constitutes a possessor who has acquired as a fruit while purchasing the instant BM which was cut down at the upper limit at the time of the purchase of the instant BM, and kept in the form of bM without properly confirming whether it was stolen, and thus, the instant BM cannot be acquired in good faith. As such, the period of possession did not reach 10 years, and thus, it cannot be acquired in prescription.

Therefore, the act of the defendant, who is an expert of Buddhist cultural properties, purchased the BM of this case from BR with dolus recognition that it is stolen property constitutes the crime of acquiring stolen property.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the BR acquired the instant BM in good faith and lost its stolen nature.

The sentencing of the court below's improper sentencing (three years of suspended sentence in two years of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

Defendant

In fact, the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties, contrary to the designated cultural heritage or registered cultural heritage, does not stipulate the method of safekeeping of general movable property, so the owner of the cultural heritage can arbitrarily determine the method of safekeeping.

Therefore, the phrase “concepting a general movable cultural property and impairing its utility” is widely construed as “an act that makes it difficult or impossible to detect it by making its location unclear.”