In August 2013, the Defendant: (a) around the land site of the Victim E (hereinafter “F”) owned by the victim E (hereinafter “F”) adjoining from the aforementioned D public sewerage; and (b) on August 2013, the Defendant made it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of the land owned by the victim by means of allowing customers using the said gravel to use the gravel as a road.

2. The purpose of the crime of bordering under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relations with respect to land boundaries. The mere destruction, movement, or removal of a boundary mark is insufficient solely by the mere destruction, movement, or removal of 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 here refers to the de facto boundary, which has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as where the boundary was generally approved as a boundary or where there was an explicit or implied agreement between interested parties, regardless of whether it is a legitimate legal boundary.

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.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973 Decided September 9, 2010). Meanwhile, there are witness E's testimony, E's protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against the defendant, E's protocol of protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against the defendant, protocol of statement of the police against E's protocol of protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against the defendant

However, in light of the above legal principles, the case in this case is the land where C, F, and G land grow up, and the defendant is the above.