2016No686 Boundaryed

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Defendant

Yang Jin-Jon (Lawsuits) and leapin (Trial)

(1) Attorneys Lee Do-young

Suwon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 46 decided February 26, 2016

August 23, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

The Defendant did not recognize the boundary of land and did not intend to make it impossible to recognize the boundary of land. Therefore, the offense of boundary is not established.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant owned 2 of a 60 foot warehouse on the ○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○ 283 - 19 and 2 parcels, which had been prior to the example, the neighbor’s house, 281 - 21 - Kim00, the complainant’s house located at the same time.

It was known that assembly-type fences are installed in one's own land at least 30 cm.

On October 2012, the Defendant, on the boundary line between the above land, was unable to identify the boundary of the site by recklessly destroying the eight-meters of concrete assembly-type 12 meters which were installed in the past and covering it with soil.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges, following the adoption of the Defendant’s partial statement on January 1, 200, the police statement on January 1, 200, the accusation statement, the land cadastre, the cadastral map, the land register, the general building register, the investigation report (the telephone call on the complainant’s statement of the other △△△△△△△△△△△△△△), each field photograph on January 1, and the submitting photograph of the complainant as the evidence of conviction.

C. Judgment of the court below

1) In order to establish a boundary offense, a boundary offense must not only destroy, move, or remove a boundary mark, or make it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by other means, but also have the intent to make the boundary known in the above way.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court:

In other words, the defendant has been using the way of passage on the wall of this case. ② The wall of this case was in the state immediately before the collapse as shown below, and the defendant was partially deprived of the wall of this case in order to prevent the occurrence of safety accident due to it, ③ The defendant still has been able to distinguish the boundary of the land due to the part of the wall remaining after the wall of this case and the trace of the wall (see, e.g., right 1 to 9 of the investigation record), 2).

A person shall be appointed.

In other words, ① the Defendant used a passage along the wall of this case. ② The wall of this case was in the state immediately before the collapse as shown below, ② The Defendant was partially released from the wall in order to prevent the occurrence of an accident due to it. ③ The Defendant still was able to distinguish the boundary of the land due to some of the fence remaining after the fence and the trace of the fence (see, e.g., title 9 of investigation record), ④ After the public prosecutor, the Defendant was released from the wall of this case, and the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that it was hard to recognize that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that it was hard to recognize that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the ground that the Defendant was released from the wall of this case on the 000th day after the issuance of the wall of this case.

D. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is reasonable, and the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again decided as follows.

[Judgment to be used again]

The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as the statement 2-A. This constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime for the same reason as the statement 2-c., and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung-ho et al.

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Hak-chan

1) The Defendant asserted that he/she consented to Kim △△△△△, an owner.

2) The investigation prosecutor also pointed out this issue and ordered the supplementation of the investigation.