The statute of limitations for principal offenders excavated without permission and the violation of Article 82 (3) and (4) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act;

Even if a cultural property excavated without permission is permanently excavated, it shall not be deemed that the cultural property excavated without permission owns the stolen property subject to a violation of Article 82(3) and (4) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, and if the statute of limitations for the principal offender excavated without permission is expired and it becomes impossible to exercise the State's penal authority, and the confiscation or collection of the violated goods has become impossible, it shall be deemed that the stolen property under the so-called Cultural Heritage Protection Act for the violated goods is lost. Therefore, even if the statute of limitation for the principal offender excavated without permission has expired at the time of the preliminary transfer or transfer mediation of the cultural property, it shall not be punished as a violation of the above Act.

Article 82 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Article 362 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Orado, Kim Tae-cheon

Daegu District Court Decision 86No785 delivered on January 26, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that punished the defendants under Articles 87(2), 82(3), and 82(4) of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act, on the ground that the crime committed in the first instance trial was sufficiently recognized by the evidence indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance, that the defendants prepared for the purpose of preparing for or arranging the transfer of the cultural properties of this case without permission with knowledge of the fact.

However, the crime of violation of Article 82(3) and (4) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is a provision punishing a person who, without permission, transfers, acquires, transports, or takes custody of, or arranges the above act with or without compensation, any cultural heritage excavated without permission, and therefore, it must be a clear evidence to prove that the cultural heritage in this case has been excavated without permission, and even if the cultural heritage in this case was excavated without permission, even if it is assumed that the cultural heritage in this case was excavated without permission, it cannot be said that the cultural heritage excavated without permission has so-called stolen property, which is the object of the crime of violation of the above Article 82(3) and (4) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, and therefore, if the statute of limitations has expired for the principal offense excavated without permission and it becomes impossible to exercise the national authority due to the expiration of the statute of limitation period, it shall be deemed that the stolen property in the so-called "cultural Heritage Protection Act" of the violated goods has also become lost if the above Defendants transferred or arranged the crime in this case without permission at the time of the above preliminary transfer or transfer.

Nevertheless, the court below did not examine when the cultural property of this case was excavated without permission from anyone or when the statute of limitations has expired, and the judgment of the court below did not constitute a crime without any evidence or a mistake of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above Article. The appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)