The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant was aware of the facts charged that the victim C, the owner of the site adjacent to the Defendant’s construction site and the adjacent site, displayed a fash to the boundary of the land by promptly cutting down the boundary of the land, and the strings are unable to pass by the strings, thereby impairing the boundary of the strings.

On June 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Victim C, which was installed at the boundary of E and F, to prevent the Defendant from being aware of the boundary of the Defendant’s spoke as well as 7 caps and 1 posts.

2. Determination

A. The offense of bordering legal principles is established only when the boundary of land is recognized by any act, which makes it impossible to recognize the boundary of land. Thus, even if there was an act to commit a crime of bordering family boundary, the offense of bordering cannot be established unless the act results in the impossibility of recognizing land boundary due to the act (Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682 delivered on December 8, 192). B. As to the instant case, the health team and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, at the request of the complainant, made a cadastral survey (survey of boundary) by the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the boundary indicated on the floor becomes impossible to recognize due to the act of the defendant.

There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act to determine innocence by the proviso of Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act and not to disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.