Around October 2013, the Defendant filled up the above land C and buried the said land at the same height with the said land, and buried the said stone fence.

Accordingly, the defendant was unable to recognize the boundary of the above land C and the above land E.

2. The boundary of the Defendant’s defense land C and E land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”) is known not to be a stone fence, but to the waterway, and there was no fact that the Defendant filled up or buried the land C at the time of netcheon.

3. The boundary violation under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is a boundary mark that does not correspond to the boundary line in the substance, inasmuch as the purpose of the provision is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relations as to land boundaries.

Even if it has been generally approved, or if it was determined by the explicit or implied agreement of interested persons, such boundary marks fall under the table stipulated in the above Article of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986). First of all, as to whether the boundary of each land of this case has been generally approved as the boundary of each land of this case, health stand, and ① at the time of the first complaint and the first police investigation, D excavated the words and ethics on which the defendant had been bordered with his own land and thus making it unclear of the boundary.

Not mentioning that the boundary of each land of this case, such as statement, is the boundary of each land of this case, but it was stated that the defendant, at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, performed molding the land possessed by the defendant, and removed the stone fence accumulated on the boundary. ② During the dispute with D, the defendant continuously argued that the waterway located on each land of this case is the boundary.