The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In spite of the fact-finding, the Defendants, through Defendant B’s funeral Ha (hereinafter “instant grave”), moved to four graves of Defendant B’s parents and grandparents (hereinafter “fourths”) with the consent of their family members, including Defendant B’s punishment and female life, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment by changing the “family members, such as pro-friendly E and female students,” “H” into “H,” and the judgment of the court below was changed by granting permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

B. (i) Even if there exists a reason to reverse ex officio as above, the Defendants’ grounds for appeal on the mistake of facts still are subject to the adjudication of this court, and this is to be examined.

The purpose of the crime of excavating a grave is to punish a person without any authority or even if he/she has authority to do so against the religious order and order of the body of the grave. Thus, in cases where a person who has the authority to protect, serve, manage, and dispose of the grave without permission or a person who has obtained permission from the person who has the authority to properly do so finds it out with the religious and customary order of the body, the illegality of the act is excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8131, Dec. 13, 2007). Meanwhile, in cases where he/she finds it out with the religious and customary order of the body, the illegality of the act is excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8131, Dec. 13, 2007).