At around 15:30 on June 30, 2019, the Defendant extracted a total of 4.53 meters of boundary rocks fixed on the floor, which are part of the boundary rocks installed on the land B and E, at the time of Pakistan, and moved approximately 1m in hand, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary of each of the above lands.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the crime of boundary intrusion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring stability in relation to the boundary of land. The mere destruction, movement, or removal of a boundary mark is insufficient only by simply destroying, moving, or removing the boundary mark, and by making it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by the above act or any other means. Here, the boundary refers to a de facto boundary, which has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as where the boundary was generally approved as a boundary, regardless of whether it is a legally legitimate boundary, or where there exists an explicit or implied agreement between interested parties.

As such, there was a violation of legitimate boundaries, even if there was an act.

Even if so, the crime of boundary intrusion is not established unless the result of the impossibility of recognition of the de facto boundary of the above land does not occur.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). B.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone is the boundary point between B and E (hereinafter “instant land”) where the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant E”) was occupied by the boundary point.