[1] The meaning of the boundary in the crime of boundary invasion

[2] Whether a temporary boundary mark constitutes an object of a crime of boundary (affirmative)

[1] The boundary stipulated in Article 370 of the Criminal Code refers to a legitimate boundary under the law, and even if it is a boundary that does not meet the legitimate boundary under the law, if it is determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties, it shall be deemed a boundary stipulated in this Act.

[2] If a boundary mark under Article 370 of the Criminal Code indicates a de facto boundary commonly used objectively to a certain extent, it is not permanent but permanent, and it constitutes the object of this crime, even temporary.

[1] Article 370 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 370 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 75Do2564 delivered on May 25, 1972 (Gong1976, 9197) Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492 delivered on December 9, 1986 (Gong1987, 182) Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 492)

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 98No1428 delivered on January 14, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A boundary under Article 370 of the Criminal Code refers to a legitimate boundary under the law, and even if a boundary does not correspond to a legitimate boundary under the law, if the boundary is determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties, it shall be deemed a boundary under this Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682, Dec. 8, 192). In addition, if the boundary mark indicates a de facto boundary commonly used objectively to a certain extent, it shall not be permanent, but shall be deemed a temporary one which constitutes the object of this crime.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the evidence in its judgment, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which punished the defendant as a crime of bordering, since the posts and steel nets removed by the defendant fall under the boundary table prescribed in the above Article of the law, according to the facts of the judgment, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)