When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

[Basic Facts] The Defendant is the owner of the land C at Jeju, and the victim D is the owner of the same forest and field E, and the Defendant and the victim are the owners of the same forest and field, around September 18, 2014, requested the head of the Jeju Regional Headquarters of the Korea Land Information Corporation to measure the boundary of the land and set up posts in the presence of two people in order to divide the boundary between the land and the said E forest and field.

【Criminal Facts】

From August 16, 2015 to December 10 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) from around the Jeju-si Forest; (b) from around December 16, 2015, the Defendant extracted posts indicating the boundaries as above, and removed the boundary marks, and moved the large natural seat of the victim, which played a natural boundary at the said boundary point, into the Defendant’s land, and thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement of statement by the police about D (Evidence No. 41 pages);

1. Investigation report (in relation to the field re-survey in this case), investigation report (related to the change of the location of a natural stone 2 point);

1. Written decisions on the delivery of land, F substitute decisions, and cadastral survey results; and

1. A certified copy of cadastral map;

1. A report on internal investigation (attached to the site photographs of this case);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 370 of the Criminal Act and Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel on the assertion of the provisional payment order as to Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was on the land owned by the defendant, and two natural rocks were on the land owned by the defendant, and they did not play a natural boundary role, and they did not know that the defendant did not extract posts directly indicating a boundary and did not damage water ditches, and the boundary cannot be perceived due to the damage of the above natural stone point and the 2 points.