The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts of this case, there was no agreed boundary indication between the cemetery C and the land owned by the Defendant in the land of this case, and even if such boundary indication was made, there was no damage or other means, and there was no intent to commit a violation of boundary, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the boundary referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Act does not necessarily refer to a legitimate boundary under the law, and even if a boundary is determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties, it shall be deemed a boundary referred to in this Act if it is determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties. If it is objectively used to a certain extent, it is not permanent but temporary one (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do480, Apr. 9, 199). 2) On the basis of the above legal principle, the following circumstances recognized by the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, (i) the boundary was set up in the front part of the cemetery cemetery owned by C, and around the past, it appears that the trees were planted, and (ii) the defendant was not allowed to newly construct a new tomb and build a new tomb road, and (iii) the defendant was found to have consented to the construction of a new tomb.