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

Defendant

A is the representative of G, a contractor who is entering into a contract with C, which is an executor around September 20, 2013, and works for the civil engineering of commercial buildings, neighboring living sites, and factory sites in the Kimpo City D, E, and F, Kimpo City.

From the beginning of October 2013, the Defendant had been engaged in the civil engineering work on a single unit, such as Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, J 124 square meters of land owned by the neighboring victim I, and had been engaged in flatization work on 18 square meters of land (12 meters of length, 3 meters of width). On November 20, 2013, the Defendant had the victim arbitrarily removed signs that he was depthd to indicate the boundary of land according to the result of the survey and caused the recognition of the boundary of land by arbitrarily removing the signs of land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on land cadastre and cadastral survey result;

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 370 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. At the time of this case, the defendant did not know the fact that a boundary mark was installed on the victim's land, and since the above boundary mark was taken by miscellaneous grass and miscellaneous trees, the article of Madles engaged in flatization work at the defendant's order was not discovered. Thus, the defendant did not have the intent of boundary violation, and further, the act of this case is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, the illegality of this act is dismissed.

First of all, as to the assertion that there was no intention, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment, namely, ① the victim installed a boundary marking tree after conducting a boundary survey on his own land on November 19, 2013, and ② the Defendant’s statement in the police, on October 2013, part of the land on which the Defendant performed work around 203.