The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has decided to partially drop accusations, and so eased sentences on two convicted violators of the Kun Iam Temple.
The temple is an officially recognized cultural heritage location.
A lower court initially found the two convicted, identified as A and B by the court in a statement, guilty of violating provisions in the Penal Code.
A was found guilty of violating Article 207 Clause 2 Item c in conjunction with Articles 26 and 67 and was sentenced to a year in prison with three years’ probation. B was found guilty of violating Article 312 Clause 2 of the Penal Code in conjunction with Article 96 Clause 3 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law, as well as Article 207 Clause 2 Item c of the Penal Code. All accusations combined have resulted in three years and three months in prison for B.
After filing an appeal on the grounds of disagreement with the accusation using Article 207 Clause 2 Item c of the Penal Code, the second court ruled in favor of the duo over this particular argument.
The key reason supporting the overruling is that the second court agreed with the explanation given by the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) during the appeal.
According to the MP, pursuant to Article 207 Clause 1 of the Penal Code, “cultural properties” have their nature determined by another law. Meanwhile, cultural heritage in Macau is under the protection of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law, which has definitions of cultural heritage.
Nonetheless, despite references being different in Chinese, the Portuguese references in both laws are “património cultural” (cultural heritage in English), which the MP considered proof that both laws were referring to the same thing.
Based on this, the second court agreed that the accusation using Article 207 Clause 2 Item c of the Penal Code was inappropriate. As a result, the duo have had their sentences eased to six months in prison with two years’ probation, and a year and three months in prison with three years’ probation respectively. AL
