On March 2012, the Defendant, while constructing a building on the instant land, removed the stone fence without permission, and made it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land by creating a garden by sub-fluoring turf, etc. aggregate.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that even if the part of the instant land on which a stone fence was installed is difficult to be recognized as owning C, the Defendant’s removal of the stone fence did not lead to the result of the impossibility of boundary recognition, and thus, it does not constitute a crime.

B. Since the purpose of Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundaries, even though the boundary marks are not in conformity with the actual boundary marks, if they have been approved generally from the previous time or are determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties, such boundary marks shall fall under the boundary marks stipulated in the above Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Do2564, May 25, 1976). However, it is reasonable to view that the boundary marks established by a person without any right under private law by asserting title, such as ownership, cannot externally oppose the boundary marks or ex post facto judicial rights, and thus lose their validity, do not fall under the boundary marks referred to in this Act.

C. Specifically, according to the records of this case, C purchased 68 square meters from D around January 13, 1976 at the time of the land of this case at KRW 129,200, and C thereafter.