The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. In order to construct a new house to E on November 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) carried out the removal of posts, which form a boundary between the above land and the F, and set up the soil bottom of the posts by using a fracker.

Accordingly, in order to determine the boundary of land, the defendant removed posts installed above the boundary marks and made it impossible to recognize the boundary.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent to have such convictions, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

2) The crime of violation of boundary under Article 370 of the Criminal Act refers to a de facto boundary that has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as where the boundary was generally approved as a boundary or where there exists an express or implied agreement between interested parties, regardless of whether the boundary is a legitimate boundary under the law, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of violation of boundary, even if there was an act of infringing a legitimate boundary under the law, so long as there does not lead to an impossible result in the perception of the de facto boundary of the above land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973, Sept. 9, 2010).