경계침범
All the judgment below is reversed.
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendants thought that the Defendants were to own their own land in the E-mail, E, 1,774 cubic metres and I, 353 cubic metres (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), there was no intention to damage the boundary table and make it impossible to recognize the land boundary.
B. In light of the legal principles, since the acquisition by prescription has been completed by the Defendants by occupying the instant land for at least 20 years with their intent to own it, the Defendants do not constitute the elements of the crime of aggression, even if the Defendants, as stated in the facts charged, walked red strings, cut down gates, or extracted gates.
The Defendants, in order to cultivate the instant land, walked red stampers, extracted spawres or spawres, or extracted posts on the instant land. As such, this would be justified as legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.
C. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the case of the amendment of indictment, the prosecutor below the facts charged.
As stated in the same paragraph, the court applied for changes in the indictment, and this court permitted the changes in the subject matter of the adjudication, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
B. The summary of the revised charges 1) Defendant A cultivated the land owned by Pyeongtaek-si, J-si, the neighboring land owned by the victim of the victim of the damage, to the land owned by the victim of Pyeongtaek-si, which is the land owned by the victim of the damage, and the victim displayed the boundary between the land E and J land in red coloring. On April 2012, Defendant B, who was installed by the victim of the above two land at around 2012, walked a red coloring, which is a boundary sign, which is the two land installed by the victim, and thereafter, Defendant B appears to have a clerical error in the application for permission to change the indictment to the land owned by the victim E and the land owned by the defendant, which was created between the two above land for the boundary marking again on March 2013.