The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Since the awareness of the boundary has become virtually difficult due to the act of the accused on the gist of the grounds of appeal, the offense in violation of boundary is constituted;

Nevertheless, the court below judged the defendant not guilty of the facts charged and erred by mistake of facts.

2. The offense of boundary violation under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is established only by simply destroying, moving, or removing the land table and making it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land by other means. It is necessary to recognize the boundary of the land as the result of the act of removing, moving, removing, etc. the land surface table as a result of such act, and there is no provision regarding the attempted crime, so long as the act of destroying the table table does not lead to the impossibility of recognizing the boundary, it cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do856 delivered on September 10, 191, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the above boundary at the request of the court below does not simply attach the above construction on the road, but it is necessary to recognize the boundary of the land as the result of the act of cutting off the land on the road, and as the result, it is not possible for the prosecutor to promptly set the boundary of the land on the road or the new boundary of the road.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.