The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), even though there was an express or implied agreement between the parties on a new boundary by conducting a cadastral survey in the presence of the Defendant and the victim I, the fact that the Defendant damages the said boundary is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence against the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment is examined closely and closely, and the following circumstances revealed by the record were revealed, namely, the fact that the previous fence on the part of the Defendant was invaded by approximately 28 cm with the victim’s land due to a boundary survey around March 2015 upon the Defendant’s request by the Defendant, and the victim was set up a boom on the part of the Defendant’s land and the victim’s land. After June 23, 2015, another boundary survey was conducted at the victim’s request around June 23, 2015. However, if there was an agreement between the Defendant and the victim at the time of the boundary survey on March 2015, that the actual boundary confirmed as a result of the cadastral surveying, not the previous boundary, but the actual boundary confirmed as a result of the cadastral surveying, the lower court’s determination on the facts and determination is justifiable, and the prosecutor’s assertion that there was no error in the misapprehension of the facts alleged by the prosecutor is rejected.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the judgment of the court below is correct ex officio on the ground that the "D" of the 15th parallel, 17 parallel, 18 parallel, 16 parallel, 2th parallel, 3th parallel, 3th parallel, 5th parallel, 11th parallel, 13 parallel, 14 parallel, is obvious that it is a clerical error of "I", and thus