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

As a result of the Defendant’s cadastral survey, on February 4, 2015, on the ground that B used land D and E by the Defendant from C, and around February 9, 2015, around C and B were aware of the boundary of each other’s land, the Defendant filled up approximately 100 meters of water ditches with soil, and damaged bank trees, etc. planted by B adjacent to the water ditch, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. A complaint;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that on-site photographs [the Defendant’s relocation of boundaries according to the result of cadastral surveys does not constitute a crime of invasion on boundary.]

However, the boundary not consistent with the cadastral record.

Even if it has been generally approved or it has been determined by the explicit or implied agreement of interested persons and has been used as a boundary objectively, it constitutes a boundary of an invasion crime.

According to the evidence of the court below, since around 1981, B acknowledged the fact that the defendant left the farm house on the land of Gangnam-si F based on the boundary damaged by the defendant, it is reasonable to bear the criminal liability of Article 370 of the Criminal Act against the defendant who made it impossible to recognize the above boundary.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;