The judgment below

The non-guilty portion shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on Funeral Services, etc.

A. On June 24, 2008, the lower court determined that, apart from the fact that the Defendant buried the farmland in this case on the same day (3.8m x 21.6m) of the cemetery size of 82m2, which is one’s own ownership, and that the Defendant buried five graves in another place on June 19, 2008 (in the case of remains buried in this grave, 1963, 1976, 1981, 1985, 1996), it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act of burying the remains in this part of the grave, which appears to have been 5m of the body of the buried in this case for the reason that it could have been found that the remaining remains in the burial site of the grave in this case without the permission of the competent authorities. Considering that the Defendant’s act of burying the remains in this part of the grave in this case, it was difficult to view that the remaining remains in the burial site of the grave in this case had been found to have been destroyed the remains in the above 5m of the body.

B. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

A natural funeral is not originally defined as a separate funeral method, but a grave or charnel facility due to existing burial or charnels damages the national land and the natural environment, so the former Funeral Services Act (Act No. 8489, May 25, 2007) to minimize its side effects.