The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not remove the boundary indication as indicated in the instant facts charged, with regard to the point of boundary erosion.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant as to the violation of boundaries among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The Defendant asserts that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the repealed Criminal Act. However, it is obvious that the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act have not been repealed (the lower court determined in the lower judgment on the grounds that each of the crimes as indicated in the lower judgment is concurrent crimes under Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and only the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) did not obtain consent from the owners of the land in Yong-Gun (hereinafter “instant land”) and did not minimize the infringement of ownership by the owners of the said land, and the Defendant’s obstruction of the said construction work is not unlawful as a justifiable act (the Defendant’s assertion on this part) in light of the fact that the Defendant was carrying out the said construction work without minimizing the infringement of ownership by the owners of the said land (hereinafter “instant land”). (2) The lower court’s ordering the Defendant to provide a community service order for a period of 20 hours at the same time with a suspended sentence of 6 months in imprisonment with prison labor is contrary to the principle of the prohibition of double punishment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s removal of a boundary mark as stated in the instant facts charged can be sufficiently recognized. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(1) The Defendant shall be 155 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).