If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On August 16, 2013, the Defendant dismantled the fence of the 쇠 pipe structure installed by the victim E, the owner of adjacent D land, to indicate the boundary between the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant removed the boundary table, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary of land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the substitute and E part of the statement);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each investigation report (Submission of a victim's photograph);

1. Investigation report (determination as rejection of a trial decision by the Supreme Court in a lawsuit, such as land transfer);

1. Application of each of the judgment and protocol of removal and enforcement of real estate;

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to a provisional payment order is that the Defendant again commits the instant crime despite the fact that he/she had been punished several times for the same kind of crime with regard to the same land owned by the victim.

Provided, That the punishment shall be determined as per the disposition in consideration of the age, home environment, etc. of the accused.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.