경계침범등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) did not recognize that the Defendant was a drainage officer next to the farm road at the time of the instant construction work, and that it did not reach the degree that it would not be possible to recognize the boundary of planting trees, etc., and that it was consulted by the public official in charge of the Crossing-gun Office that the instant farm road would cover gravel prior to the instant construction work, and thus, there was no awareness of illegality.
2. Determination
A. Before the judgment of the court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by authority, the prosecutor applied for changes in the contents of Paragraph 5 of the facts charged as follows. Since the subject of the judgment is changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained on the ground of the above reasons of ex officio destruction, which is the trees recognized as a boundary mark between the above farming road and the dry field owned by the victim, and where the victim was deep and tending, the above farming road was widened by moving, plucking, or destroying and damaging the paper field owned by the victim, and the above farming road affected by the dry field owned by the victim, thereby making it impossible to recognize the above boundary." However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case.
B. In the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the charges were partially modified, but only the fact of the modified facts was added to the fact-finding acknowledged by the lower court to the effect that “absc
The "security" referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Code is not necessarily a legitimate boundary, but is a boundary that does not fit legal legitimate boundary.