The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant purchased the land E in Gangnam-si, which constitutes a boundary with the land of Gangnam-si, which is located in the victim C.

around August 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) performed the construction of a new commercial building building building building building building building building building building attached to the building of the victim on the ground of Gangnam-si D, Gangnam-si; and (b) caused approximately 14 meters of the victim’s site boundary mark to make it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of the victim’s land within the water.

The victim, who became aware of this fact, demanded the restoration of the original state and he saw the victim's right-hand side of the site to be filled up with about 17 cm and about 13 cm in the central part of the victim's site (when seen above the victim's site).

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant, while constructing a new building on his/her own site, left a fence indicating the boundary with the land owned by an adjacent complainant and then he/she he/she accumulated a new fence; and (b) the newly built fence invadeds the site as stated in the facts charged.

However, in light of the fact that the wall, which was originally used as the boundary, was old so as to be collapsed by the construction of the defendant's building, the defendant installed a new wall at the request of the complainant, and that the wall was not influenced by the complainant's land, the evidence alone, which resulted in the defendant's act of not recognizing the boundary between the defendant and the complainant's land.

It cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant committed the above act with the intent to make it impossible to recognize the boundary of land or that the Defendant intended to do so.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case did not prove evidence of crime, and thus, acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and publicly notified the summary of this judgment pursuant to Article 58(2