The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on April 2015, 2015, the Defendant: (b) on the farmland located in Chungcheongnam-gun, C, and D; (c) on the farmland owned by the victim F, B, and E, the farmland owned by the Defendant and C is equal to that of the farmland owned by the Defendant; and (d) on the ground that D and E are in peace and in the farmland owned by the Defendant, it is difficult for the Defendant to set up a ductal between B and C without the victim’s permission; (b) on the ground that the farmland owned by the victim was 159 square meters between D and E, and the farmland boundary owned by the victim was 159 square meters between D and E, and the land boundary was 132.9 square meters between E and the victim’s land boundary was 132.9 square meters.

2. Determination

A. Article 370 of the Criminal Act provides that “When a boundary mark is damaged, moved or removed, or it is impossible to recognize the boundary of land by any other means, the crime of boundary intrusion shall be punished as a crime of boundary.” Such a boundary offense is established under the premise that a boundary mark indicating the boundary of land is installed, which makes it impossible to recognize such boundary mark by means of damage, etc. is evident in the language and text of the said provision.

2) In addition, the crime of boundary invasion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act aims to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relations with respect to land boundaries. It is not sufficient to simply destroy, move, or remove a boundary mark, and only if it is impossible to recognize land boundaries by the above act or any other method. Here, the boundary here refers to the de facto boundary that has been generally approved as a boundary, regardless of whether it is a legitimate legal boundary, or is objectively used to some extent, such as where there is an explicit or implied agreement by interested parties. Thus, even if there was an act of impairing legitimate legal boundary, it is so long as there is an act of impairing the legal boundary.