If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

On June 2005, the Defendant cut up about 60 square meters of soil from among D forest land owned by the Defendant without permission for conversion of mountainous district on the early 2005, and changed it to the ginseng field.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, and A;

1. Statement of each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of field photographs and Acts and subordinate statutes on complaint;

1. Article 53 subparagraph 1 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act (amended by Act No. 8283 of Jan. 26, 2007) and Article 14 (1) of the same Act (selected of fines) which select the applicable law for criminal facts and punishment;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. Around June 2005, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant removed four posts indicating the boundary of land H, I and C owned by the Defendant, and D and J, from the end of June 2005, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary of land.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the crime of boundary intrusion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring stability in relation to the boundary of land. The mere destruction, movement, or removal of a boundary mark is insufficient only by simply destroying, moving, or removing 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 refers to a de facto boundary, which has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as where the boundary was generally approved as a boundary, regardless of whether it is a legally legitimate boundary, or where there exists an explicit or implied agreement between interested parties.

I would like to say.

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). B.

The following circumstances can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined in this Court, namely, ① four posts, which were the boundary of the Defendant and C’s land, are unclear as to who they were installed, and ② C around 2004 or 2005.