The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the court below found sufficient facts charged of this case where the defendant could not recognize the boundary of land by removing the existing wall without permission, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On September 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, in order to newly construct the Defendant’s housing located in the Jeonnam-gun, the lower court: (a) removed, without permission, the Dog fence, which constitutes the boundary between the Dog-gun and the Dog-gun, Jeonnam-gun; and (b) failed to recognize the boundary of the land.

B. The offense of boundary intrusion by the lower court is established only when the boundary of land is recognizable by any act, and thus, there was an attempt to commit a crime of boundary invasion.

Even if the act does not result in the impossibility of land boundary recognition, the crime of boundary invasion cannot be established unless it results in the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682 delivered on December 8, 1992). In light of such legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the court below, the defendant voluntarily removed a block fence installed between F land owned by C and F, which constituted the boundary between F, which was owned by the defendant, and the land owned by C, as stated in the facts charged, without the consent of the owner.

However, according to the evidence, on August 9, 2017, prior to the removal of the wall at the Defendant’s request, the Korea Land Information Corporation conducted a boundary survey at the Korea Land Information Corporation on August 9, 2017, and installed a boundary mark at the boundary point of each of the above lands. G that removed the above wall at the Defendant’s direction on the above land indicated the previous boundary by raising soil on the place where the wall was located, and according to the images of the aerial photography taken on September 13, 2017, after the removal of the wall, after G’s removal of the wall, each of the above.