B. Although there was an act of attacking a boundary, if the act did not result in the impossibility of land boundary erosion due to that act (negative)

(c) The case holding that the establishment of a crime of aggressioning a boundary is unlawful on the ground that the act of installing additional fences on the extension line of the fenced wall constructed at king was merely an act that the person wants to clarify the boundary he asserts, and it cannot be deemed that the act of causing the impossibility of recognition of land boundary;

B. Boundary intrusion crime is established only when the boundary of land is recognizable by any act. Thus, even if there was an act to commit boundary, the boundary intrusion crime cannot be established unless the act does not lead to the impossibility of land boundary recognition.

C. The case denying the establishment of a crime of boundary intrusion on the ground that the act of installing additional fences on the extension line of the fenced wall constructed at king was merely an act that the person wants to clarify the boundary he asserts, but cannot be viewed as an act that caused the impossibility of recognition of land boundary.

1. The facts found by the court below guilty on the basis of its macro-Evidence are as follows.

In other words, although the defendant was aware in advance that there is a problem in the site boundary because 3, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-dong, resided in the house of 161 18-1, and the house was built by subsidenceing about about 27 square meters from the land of 161-189 of the same place as the victim's right owned by the 161-189 of the same site owned by the victim who was immediately adjacent to the above house, the defendant made it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land owned by the above victim because he additionally he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he

Meanwhile, according to the records, the above land owned by the defendant and the land owned by the victim were partitioned from 161 to the same place. Since the sectional owner constructed the above building around 1978, the above 161-18 land was partitioned into several lots, such as the above land. Of these, the victim purchased the above 161-18 land around 1978 and the above 161-18 land and the above 161-18 building were entirely transferred, and the defendant owned each of them around July 1989 and owned each of them, and it was known that the above fence was a legitimate boundary between the two parties. According to the fact that the above building owned by the defendant was partitioned into the above land owned by the victim and the above 7-meter boundary wall was connected to the above land boundary wall, and thus, the above 7-meter boundary line was also connected to the above land boundary boundary wall.

2. (1) The purpose of Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundaries. Here, the boundary refers to a legitimate boundary under the law, not to refer to a legitimate boundary under the law. Although the boundary is not in line with the legitimate boundary under the law, if it has been generally approved from the past, or if it is objectively used as a boundary determined by the express or implied agreement of interested parties, it is the boundary under this Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986; 75Do2564, May 25, 1976). Accordingly, even if there is a dispute as to whether the de facto boundary used in the past is a legitimate boundary under the law, it shall be deemed that the boundary still falls under the boundary under this Article, unless there are special circumstances to deem it to be a loss of objectivity as a boundary, such as the de facto boundary is not a legitimate boundary under the law.

In this case, on the ground that the above fence constructed is a legally legitimate boundary, the court below held that the boundary in the cadastral map, which is not the above fence, is a boundary as referred to in the crime of boundary, on the ground that the above fence is either a boundary in the cadastral map or a boundary in the cadastral map. However, if the above fence has been used as a boundary in fact between interested parties as the boundary line, it should be deemed that the above fence and its basis are the boundary as an object of the crime of boundary regardless of whether it is consistent with the cadastral map or the boundary in the cadastral map, and it should not be deemed that the boundary in the cadastral map is the boundary as an object of the crime of boundary regardless of whether it is consistent with the boundary in the cadastral map or the boundary in the cadastral map (if the boundary line as above is not legally legitimate, the victim can be entitled to remedy for rights through civil procedure).

Although factual relations and legal principles are the same, the court below's determination that the boundary line in the cadastral map, which is not the de facto boundary in this case, is the boundary of the boundary crime, and on the premise of this, deemed that the defendant's act constituted the boundary crime, is ultimately an error of understanding the boundary of the boundary crime and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

(2) Meanwhile, the offense of boundary is established only when the boundary of land is recognizable by any act, and thus, even if there was an act to commit a crime of boundary, it cannot be deemed that the offense of boundary is not established unless the act results in the impossibility of land boundary recognition due to the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do856, Sept. 10, 191; Supreme Court Decision 71Do2293, Feb. 29, 1972). As seen in the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s act installed additional walls connected to the above wall on the extension line of the fence constructed at king, and it is nothing more than that of the Defendant’s assertion, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a result of the impossibility of recognition as to the land boundary owned by the victim by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below, which held that the act of the defendant caused the result of the impossibility of recognition of land boundary due to the act of the defendant's judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the impossibility of recognition of land boundary, which is a constituent element of the crime of land

(3) Therefore, the appeal, including the above point's point's point's point's point's point's point's point of view, should be justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.