Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

From May 1, 2012 to July 17, 2012, the Defendant newly constructed a house in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-do, and the Defendant was unable to recognize the boundary of the land by removing earth and sand (not less than 10m in length, about 3m in height) located on the land and boundary of D and making it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. A report on investigation (on-site verification photographs);

1. Boundary surveying data (the defendant and his defense counsel claimed that the earth wall, which constitutes the boundary of the land owned by the defendant and D, was naturally collapseed and lost, and that the defendant did not have damaged or removed earth and sand;

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) D was located in the land located in the Gyeong-gun F (hereinafter “F land”) and in the land located in the Gyeong-gun G (hereinafter “G land”); and (b) the land located in the Gyeong-gun G (hereinafter “N”) located near the boundary of the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun (hereinafter “G land”); (c) there was no repair, but there was a visit to the F land every year in order to take punishment for the first time following the Daegu director of the Gyeong-gun, and there was a continuous existence of the instant soil fence prior to the instant case.

(2) On March 27, 2012, the witness E who surveyed the boundary of G land owned by the Defendant on March 27, 2012 at the request of the Defendant, was located between F land and G land differently from the boundary indicated in the cadastral map at the time, and was indicated as a point in the boundary survey data.

In light of the fact that the Defendant, as a result of the above survey, became aware that a considerable part of the soil fence of this case was installed on G land, not on the F land boundary part, but on G land. In light of the fact that part of the soil fence of this case was installed on G land, there is a possibility of natural damage due to the lack of remuneration, etc., but soil fence was not damaged to the extent that the boundary of the land cannot be known.