The case reversing the original judgment ex officio on the ground that the fact that a large body was buried in a place other than a cemetery does not fall under Article 19 subparagraph 1 of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act.

In order to establish the crime of non-disclosure as prescribed in Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law, it is established that even though it is clearly aware that the principal offender's act is an offender who commits the crime as prescribed in Article 7 of the same Act within Article 3 of the same Act, it is not notified to the investigative

Article 4 (1) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act; Article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 71No2477 delivered on November 5, 1971, Busan District Court Decision 71No2477 delivered on November 5, 1971

All judgment of the first and second court shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final decision.

(1) First, the Defendant’s appeal is justified.

The assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and even if the defendant obtained permission for the burial of the corpse of the inmate in this case, so long as it is not a cemetery permitted, and so long as it is buried so far as it is not a cemetery, regardless of its intention or negligence, it cannot be exempted from the responsibility for violation of Article 18 subparagraph 1 and Article 4 (1) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act, regardless of its intention or negligence. Therefore, there is no error in the court below's failure to examine the existence of the criminal intent. Therefore,

(2) Next, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance supported by the court below, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the defendant buried a dead body in a place other than a cemetery and recognized the so-called "Article 19 (1) and Article 4 (1) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act" but it is clear that Article 19 (1) does not constitute a legal provision that constitutes the above recognized facts. Thus, the judgment of the court of first and second instance did not err by applying a wrong law.

Therefore, all judgment of the first and second judgment is reversed, and this case is sufficient to render a direct judgment by a party member, and therefore, it is decided to be readable, but the facts and the explanation of evidence at the time of a single trial are invoked

In light of the law, as the judgment of the defendant comes under the so-called 's holding falls under Article 18 (1) and Article 4 (1) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months, and considering the circumstances, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date of confirmation of the judgment in accordance with Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges for the same reason.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng