§ 370. Objects of boundary infringement under the Criminal Code

Article 370 of the Criminal Code refers to an index showing the limit of the place of the right such as ownership, even though it is not consistent with the substantive legal relationship, it is recognized or generally approved as customary, or determined by the agreement of the interested party or determined by the competent authority, or if it is not determined by the competent authority, it is the object of the infringement.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 74No679 delivered on June 19, 1975

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's appeal is examined.

Since the law of Article 370 of the Criminal Code intends to prevent a person from taking action for self-help in order to maintain social order, the boundary referred to in this context refers to an index that indicates the place limit of right, such as ownership, and even if it does not fit the substantive legal relationship, it is recognized or generally approved, or is determined by the specification or implied agreement of interested parties, or is not determined by the competent authority, or is de facto a boundary mark, the object of the infringement. Furthermore, the method of recognizing the existing boundary is as shown in the law. Therefore, the balance sheet that one of the parties claims that the existing boundary is a boundary consistent with the right by using the same method on the ground that it is not consistent with the true state of right is not a boundary as defined in this Article.

According to the facts duly established by the court below in this case, the court below determined that the defendant, the administrator of the non-indicted Party, who was the administrator of the non-indicted Party, established a line with the boundary between the two parties for a long time from 108-1 to 207-1 to 79-1 to 109-1 to 109-1 to e.g., the owner of the non-indicted Party, who was sentenced to the defendant's punishment, purchased the above 79-1 to 79-2 to e.g., on April 30, 1972 with the boundary between the two parties for display and the 79-2 to purchase the above e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the boundary of the defendant.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)