Between August 1, 2015, 07:30 to August 3, 2015, the Defendant removed without permission a boundary mark, crypted between the building of Seocho-gu Seoul and the Defendant, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant’s building, and installed a fence by 28 centum d site and installing a brick.

2. The offense of boundary invasion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act refers to the de facto boundary that has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as where the boundary was generally approved or where there exists an express or implied agreement between interested parties, regardless of whether the boundary was a legitimate boundary under the law, and thus, the offense of boundary is not established unless there is a result of an impossible recognition of the actual boundary of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973, Sept. 9, 2010). The following circumstances, etc., which can be acknowledged by the evidence and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, are insufficient to find otherwise guilty of the facts charged in this case.

① There was a wall (hereinafter “the wall of this case”) between Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (C; hereinafter “Defendant”) and Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (E; hereinafter “the adjoining land”), the land owned by Defendant F, and D, G, and H, which is the land owned by the Defendant, and the wall of this case (hereinafter “the wall of this case”).