A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) The concrete columns and steel-frames alleged as the boundary of the instant land are damaged at the time of the Defendant’s construction; (b) the Defendant did not specifically instruct the construction business operator to remove the columns and steel-frames; and (c) the location of the said columns and steel-frames did not function as the boundary because they were not generally approved as land boundary, thereby not constituting a crime of aggression.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles

Even if it has been generally approved or it has been 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. On the contrary, one of the parties, on the ground that the existing boundary does not coincide with the true status of rights, unilaterally and by neglecting the existing boundary and unilaterally conducting a boundary survey and that it is a boundary in line with the substantive legal relationship, and even if a balance table is set up on that ground, such boundary table does not fall under the table stipulated in the above Act (Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492 delivered on December 9, 1986). The defendant does not correspond to the existing boundary of the land of this case expressed by concrete columns and steel tanks.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below based on the evidence duly admitted, the land of this case has existed for a long time between the land of this case and the net U.S. land, and thus constitutes a boundary of a crime of aggression. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The parent of the victims shall be from 1976.