Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the owner of Gangwon-do Crossing-gun C, D, E, F, and G, was narrow, J Farm road (hereinafter “instant farm road”) located in front of the I dry Field owned by the victim H, which is an adjacent land, led to a dispute with the victim.

From March 18, 2013 to the 25th day of the same month, the Defendant: (a) used equipment such as sckes, etc. to transport to the dry field owned by the victim, and buried the water pipe, which was connected to the dry field owned by the victim, in the ground by buried the water pipe, such as concrete miscellaneouss, soil, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction”); (b) de facto, it was recognized as the boundary between the above farming road and the dry field owned by the victim; and (c) it was recognized as the boundary between the dry field owned by the victim, and thus, it was impossible to recognize the said boundary by causing the said farming to erosion of dry field owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial testimony of K witness;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the whole part, H, L, and M)

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographic materials;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the point of causing damage to property, the choice of fines) and Article 370 of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At the time of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff did not recognize that there was a drainage pipe on the side of the farm road, and it did not reach the extent that it would prevent the Plaintiff from being aware of the boundary. The instant farming road prior to the instant construction project.