The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant resides in the Changwon-si Msan Member C, and the victim E who resides in the Changwon-si E, Changwon-si, the retaining wall and fence are across the boundary of neighboring land.

Around 10:00 on February 23, 201, the Defendant: (a) laid down the above wall in Masan-si, Masan-si; (b) on the ground that the wall (12 meters in length, about 12 meters in height, and about 1.30 centimeters in height) was installed in the above part of the Defendant’s ownership, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary of the above two sites by leaving the wall unclear the boundary that was previously demarcated between the Defendant’s above residence and the victim’s above residence.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the crime of boundary intrusion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect the rights of individuals and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundary. As such, the mere destruction, movement, or removal of a boundary mark is insufficient solely by the mere destruction, movement, or removal of the boundary mark, and only by making it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by the aforementioned act or other method, there was a lawful

Even if so, the crime of boundary is not established unless the result of the impossibility of understanding of the actual boundary of land occurs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973, Sept. 9, 2010).

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s housing is on the ground of Changwon-si, Masan-si, and E’s housing is on the ground of the same Ri. The Defendant’s housing is on the ground of the same Ri, and there was a retaining wall and a wall was installed at the boundary of the retaining wall in a place where more than two meters are lower than the E’s housing, depending on the boundary of the retaining wall. In dispute over the above land boundary, a boundary restoration survey was conducted at the request of the Defendant on February 2010 from the Korea Cadastral Corporation. In this case, the Defendant participated in the Edo survey, and as a result of the survey, it is found that the land of the above 7-meter land, including the retaining wall