A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant’s act of piling up soil on the land owned by the Defendant and flowing out to a certain extent on the land owned by the victim, but the Defendant did not reach the extent that he could not recognize the boundary because there was no intention to break down the boundary, and there was a large quantity of soil flowing out, and thus, he did not reach the extent that he could not recognize the boundary. 2) Since the boundary between the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the victim is not clear, the Defendant’s act of piling up soil, thereby resulting in the impossibility of recognizing the boundary of land

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of bordering under Article 370 of the Criminal Act, the term "security" does not necessarily refer to a legitimate boundary under the law, and even if a boundary does not correspond to a legitimate boundary under the law, if it has been generally approved in the past or has been used as an objective boundary determined by the express or implied agreement of the interested parties, it shall be deemed as a boundary under this Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Do2564, May 25, 1976; 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986). Therefore, even if there is a dispute as to whether a boundary used in the past is a legitimate legal boundary, it shall be deemed as a boundary under this Article, unless there are special circumstances such as the fact that the de facto boundary is not a legitimate boundary under the law, it shall be deemed that the boundary still falls under the boundary defined in this Article, and it shall be deemed that only the structure or fence installed, such as a wall, etc., as the Supreme Court Decision 200Do28268, etc.