경계침범
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant, at early September 2016, destroyed the concrete packaging work on the road located in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, the Defendant: (a) previously surveyed the boundary of the dry field owned by the victim D and laid down concrete on the five posts installed as a boundarymark.
2. Determination
A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). Meanwhile, the boundary intrusion crime under Article 370 of the Criminal Act aims to ensure the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundaries and to protect private rights and maintain social order, and thus, the boundary marking that does not conform to the boundary line in the substance.
Even if it has been generally approved, or if it was determined by the explicit or implied agreement of interested persons, such boundary marks shall be deemed to fall under the table stipulated in the above Article of the Act, and on the contrary, one of the parties asserts that the boundary marks unilaterally are at a level consistent with the substantive legal relationship by disregarding the existing boundaries and unilaterally conducting a boundary survey on the ground that the existing boundaries do not meet the true status of rights and thus, such boundary marks do not fall under the table stipulated in the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986). (b) The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court is acknowledged as follows.
D Ownership C B. 2.