beta
Cases
2017No3124 Boundarys
Defendant
A
Appellant
Prosecutor
Prosecutor
The garment, garment, and garment (public trial)
Defense Counsel
Attorney N(N)
The judgment below
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 3923 Decided August 9, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
January 25, 2018
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
According to evidence, even though there was an explicit or implied agreement on a new boundary between the parties after conducting a cadastral survey in the presence of the Defendant and the victim I, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has damaged the said boundary. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the following circumstances: (a) the fact-finding and determination by the lower court is justifiable, inasmuch as there was an agreement between the Defendant and the victim at the time of the boundary surveying on March 23, 2015, to use the boundary surveying on the part of the victim as a result of the boundary surveying around March 2015; (b) the fact-finding and determination by the lower court was confirmed to have invaded the victim’s previous fenced about approximately 28 cm on the part of the victim’s land; and (c) the victim laid down posts on the boundary between the Defendant and the victim’s land on the part of the victim’s land; and (d) the boundary surveying was conducted at the victim’s request on June 23, 2015; and (e) the fact-finding and determination by the lower court appears to have not again conducted the boundary surveying on the part of the victim’s land at the time of the boundary surveying, if there was an agreement between the Defendant and the victim on the part of the victim at the request of the public prosecutor.
3. Conclusion
Since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (However, the judgment of the court below is correct ex officio because the 'D' of 15, 17, 18, 2, 16, 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 is obvious that it is a clerical error of 'I'.
Judges
The presiding judge shall be dedicated to judges.
Judges Cho Jong-chul
Judges Han-hane