logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.11.06 2014고단753
분묘발굴
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, as to the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the defendants are above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

F Around September 12, 2010, after the death of the F, the grave was installed in H located in G, and the said F’s grave was managed and protected by I, a son, who was his son, and the Defendants were in progress with the delegation of the “J” in the Seoul Family Court to confirm the F’s sonship.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of paternity, the Defendants were ordered to submit a gene assessment document from the court, and conspired to open a F grave in the above H to collect genes, and failed to open a F grave in opposition to the above I while seeking to open a grave in April 23, 2013.

Nevertheless, on June 9, 2013, the Defendants continued to open the first F grave in collusion with the Defendants to open the said grave, and discovered genes therefrom.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness I and K;

1. Statement of the police concerning L;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on telephone details;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 160 and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. The defendants on probation: Determination as to the defendants and their defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the illegality of the deceased’s graves should be excluded, since the deceased’s grave was excavated after obtaining permission for relocation from H, the manager of the deceased’s grave.

As for the deceased, H cannot be viewed as having the right of service, protection, management, and disposal of individual graves, as well as the general management of park cemeteries and their created graves.

In addition, according to the records of this case, the defendants opened a grave of the deceased on April 23, 2013, which was around 15:00, and hereinafter referred to as "the first reburial").

The deceased did not complete his opening in the opposition of I, who is a son of the deceased, and I was in the first opening.

arrow