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

1. The summary of the facts charged was as follows: (a) around May 2012, the Defendant: (b) conducted a boundary survey on the land owned by D and then set up a boundary marking table according to the result of the survey; and (c) removed three of the boundary marking table in the same place, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land.

2. The offense of boundary intrusion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act refers to a de facto boundary that has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as whether it is a legitimate boundary, regardless of whether it is a legitimate boundary under the law, or where there exists an explicit or implied agreement between interested parties, and thus, it was established by simply destroying, moving, or removing a boundary mark, which is insufficient to protect private rights and maintain social order. As such, the offense of boundary violation under Article 370 of the Criminal Act refers to a de facto boundary that has been used objectively to a certain extent, regardless of whether it is a legitimate boundary under the law. Thus, there was an act of impairing a legitimate boundary under the law

Even if so, the crime of boundary intrusion is not established unless the result of the impossibility of recognition of the actual boundary of the above land does not occur.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). According to the records, the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the Defendant are adjacent to the land owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant, at around 1972, agreed to be owned by the Defendant on November 3, 1995, the land owned by the neighboring land, namely, E (the owner at the time of possession of D’s land indicated in the facts of prosecution), F, and the cadastral map, without distinction between the boundary and the cadastral map, as the owner of the neighboring land, is the owner of the land owned by the Defendant. D acquired the ownership of the land indicated in the facts of prosecution on November 3, 1995, and the Defendant entered in the facts of prosecution as D from the time of the above agreement with E and F.