The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant not only did not recognize the boundary of the land, but also did not intend to make it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land. Therefore, the crime of boundary intrusion is not established.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was the Defendant: (a) owned two 60 foot storages in the land outside C and two lots of land in Pakistan; (b) prior to the example, the Defendant was aware that the Defendant’s concrete assembly-type fence, the complainant of the adjoining house, was installed at a level of 30 centimeters away from his own land.

On October 2012, the Defendant, on the boundary line between the above land, destroyed and discarded eight meters of concrete assembly-type 12 meters which was installed in the past, and opened up with soil, thereby preventing the Defendant from recognizing the boundary of the land by covering it with soil.

B. The lower court’s judgment: “1. Part of the Defendant’s legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement to E:

1. Filing of a complaint, land register, cadastral map, land registry, certified copy of land registry, general building ledger, investigation report ( telephone call against D counterpart suspect's statement by the complainant);

1. The facts charged of this case are found guilty, following the adoption of each on-site photograph and the 148th photograph of the complainant as evidence of guilt.

(c)

(1) In order to establish a boundary intrusion, the boundary mark should be destroyed, moved, or removed, or the boundary of the land cannot be recognized by other means, and there should have been an intention to make the land unrecognizable in such a way as above.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant used a passage located adjacent to the wall of this case, and the wall of this case was in the status immediately preceding the collapse as shown below, and the Defendant was partly deprived of the wall of this case in order to prevent the occurrence of safety accidents.