[1] The meaning of the "security" in the crime of boundary intrusion, and whether the crime of boundary intrusion is not established unless there is a result of the impossibility of recognizing the actual boundary of land (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant committed an act of cutting down trees and cutting down ditches by damaging the adjoining land owned by the victim, the land owned by the defendant and the victim did not have a boundary classification since before this, and that the defendant's act did not lead to an unrecognizable result of land boundary due to the defendant's act

[1] Article 370 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 370 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Do856 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2559) Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 492) Supreme Court Decision 99Do480 delivered on April 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 94Sang, 949) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9181 Delivered on December 28, 2007

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2008No1077 Decided September 25, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 370 of the Criminal Act provides that the purpose of the crime is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to the boundary of land. It is insufficient to simply destroy, move, or remove a boundary mark, and it is established only by making it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by the above act or any other means. Here, the boundary refers to the de facto boundary that has been used objectively to a certain extent, such as whether it is a legitimate boundary, regardless of whether it is a legally legitimate boundary, generally approved as a boundary, or there is an express or implied agreement between interested parties. Thus, even if there was a lawful boundary, the crime of boundary is not established unless there is a result of the impossibility of recognizing the de facto boundary of land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do856, Sept. 10, 1991; 92Do1682, Dec. 8, 1992).

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of the crime, even though the defendant committed an act of cutting down trees and cutting down ditches by impairing the adjacent victim's land, as long as the land owned by the defendant and the victim did not have been subject to boundary classification prior to this, and as long as it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act resulted in an unrecognive consequence of the defendant's act of causing the unregnified land boundary due to the defendant's act, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of the crime. Although there was a somewhat inappropriate part in the reasoning of the court below's judgment, the court below's conclusion that acquitted the defendant of the above facts charged is justified in light of the above legal principles and records

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the offense of boundary violation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)