The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. On August 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, the Defendant, at around 17:00, set up a warning board stating that “I are prohibited from entering and leaving the country,” which the victim E installed at D entrance, would be temporarily unable to play a role in the warning board, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the warning board.

2. The Defendant: (a) conducted a boundary survey between the land of Gangnam-si and the land of Gangseo-si owned by the Defendant; (b) the victim illegally installed the warning board on the land of Gangseo-si owned by the Defendant; and (c) requested removal of the unfairly installed warning board on the land of Gangseo-si owned by the Defendant; (d) however, the victim refused to do so and transferred the warning board to the border of the Section operated by the victim, thereby not impairing the utility of the above warning board; and (e) in full view of the following circumstances, the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

① The place where the warning board of this case was installed is the land of Gangseo-si, not the land of Gangseo-si, but the land of Gangseo-si.

In addition, the date and time of extraction of warning board was not August 5, 2013 when the defendant stated, but the victim stated that he/she would take photographs from G in the currency with G, and the date and time of the call is the date when G received medical treatment, and it is reasonable to view that it is July 29, 2013 when the date and time are specified.

② On July 24, 2013, the Defendant conducted a boundary survey. The victim was already aware that it falls under the part of the land of Gangnam-si, which the Defendant was jointly owned by the Defendant through a boundary survey, and the Defendant installed the warning board on the 25th of the same month, which is the following day of the boundary survey. On the 4th day after the fact that the Defendant was found to have installed the warning board on the part of the land owned by the Defendant’s joint ownership, and requested the victim to remove it.