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

On April 14, 2017, the Defendant surveyed the boundary around May 2015 by the victim D in Gangwon-gu, the Gangwon-gu, which was occupied by the victim C on the lease of the victim C on May 14, 2017, and indicated that the size of the embankment installed by C is “34 cm in length, 30 cm in width, 34 cm in width, and 34 cm in width.” However, even if that part is deleted, it appears that the size of the embankment newly installed by the Defendant, not the embankment installed by C on the record, is clearly deemed to be the size of the embankment installed by the Defendant (in case of numerical error, it appears that there seems to be any clerical error), and even if that part is deleted, it is not disadvantageous to the Defendant’

Using B-B equipment, a separate embankment was he stored on the land of the victim who is in the vicinity of B-B with soil.

As a result, the Defendant was unable to recognize the boundary of land by permitting the existing embankment and piling a new embankment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Application of the investigation report (the F counterpart investigation by the National Land Information Corporation) and the investigation report (on-site photographs) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the summary of the assertion was found to have accumulated a new embankment by the Defendant in the vicinity of the embankment installed by C, C did not lead to unrecognizing the existing embankment, and thus, did not make it impossible to recognize the boundary.

2. The circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the land of the Gangwon Hawon-gun, which C leased from March 201, 201, and the land of the Gangwon Hawon-gun, which the Defendant formed a farming house; and the land of the Jinwon-gun, which is used as a path between the land of the Gangwon Hawon-gun, where the Defendant formed a farming house; ② the Defendant exceeded his own land and H. of the Gangwon Hawon-gun.