beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below held that the facts charged in this case were not proven, and the judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was sufficiently recognized that the defendant removed the block fence as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and prevented him from ascertaining the boundaries of each land by packaging the G land and H land owned by the victim in Kimhae-si.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the Defendant is the owner of land E in Kimhae-si, and the victim F was the owner of land G and H, and the victim installed a block fence with a length of 85 meters and a height of 170 cm on the boundary line of land G and H land in Kimhae-si around October 2004.
Around April 2008, the Defendant removed the block fence, sealed the container on G and H land, thereby making it difficult to find out the boundary of the land owned by the victim.
B. On April 2008, the judgment of the court below is admissible as evidence that the defendant removed the fence of this case, such as the statement in the facts charged, and there is a statement in the investigation agency of I, the father of the victim, and in the court of original instance.
(J’s statement at the original trial court, K’s statement at the investigative agency, confirmation of facts in J, K, and L’s each fact-finding confirmation [this is also evidence as to when the fence of this case was installed as seen below] However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows: (i) although there was no person who directly collapses the fence of this case at the investigative agency, I stated that the Defendant was duplicating the fence of this case because the Defendant was using the wall on the land (in page 172 of the investigation record), and in the court of original trial, I knew that the Defendant did not remove the wall of this case at any time and by any method.