2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, F, the inheritee of the victims, constructed a building on the ground of Busan Shipping Daegu G in around 1968 at the time of construction of a new building on the ground of Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, and constructed a fenced rice bed as stated in the facts charged, 0.5 meters away from the above adjoining land, and the Defendant purchased the above adjoining land and measured the boundary between the land owned by the Defendant and the victims’ land, and confirmed that the above fenced rice bed on the land owned by the Defendant, and removed it.

As can be seen, it is difficult to view that the above hulled rice is a fence installed in the land boundary presumed to be co-owned by victims or defendants pursuant to Article 239 of the Civil Act, in view of the location of the victim’s outer wall of the building owned by the victims, and the part where the above hulled rice is located far away from the boundary of the adjoining land. Rather, the above hulled rice is deemed to constitute part of the adjoining land, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as “other’s property” as referred to in

3. According to the conclusion, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment against the defendant is