The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) Article 2 (Definition) of the Burial Cultural Heritage Act (hereinafter “the Act”) prescribed by the Act on the Protection and Investigation of Burial Cultural Properties (hereinafter “the Act”) by the Defendant at the time of the instant case, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “the instant land”).

1. Tangible cultural heritage buried or distributed underground or underwater;

2. Tangible cultural heritage packaged to buildings, etc.;

3. The lower court did not know that there was natural dynamics and fossils created and deposited in the ground surface, underground, underwater, underwater (including the sea, lake, river), etc., and other areas deemed to have a high geological value as prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “area where buried cultural properties exist”) and did not commit an act of changing the present state on the instant land. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, the actual owner of the instant land, changed the phenomenon of the area where the buried cultural heritage remains, which was verified or excavated without the permission of the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Office, by removing miscellaneous trees, etc. from 126.98 square meters of the instant land, which is an area where buried cultural heritage remains, from May 2016 to June 17, 2016, using the digging machines, etc., and installing drainage.

B. However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case, the Defendant was aware that the instant land was already confirmed or excavated, solely based on the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant land had been restored near the instant land.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to conclude that the Defendant was intentionally identified or excavated without permission from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration at the time of the instant case.