The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Removal of boundaries, etc. indicating the actual boundaries by an agency with public confidence and confidence in the gist of the grounds for appeal falls under a crime of aggressioning boundary under the Criminal Act; on the other hand, the act does not constitute a crime of aggressioning boundary.

Even if the boundary mark is extracted and its utility is harmed, it constitutes the crime of damage to property.

2. Determination

A. On May 17, 2016, the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant primary charges: (a) around 17, 2016, at the vicinity of the Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do, the Republic of Korea National Land Information Institute surveyed and installed three red boundary lines; (b) eight studs; and (c) removed red straw lines connected thereto; and (d) laid off the dry field to neighboring drainage lines, etc.; and (d) made a reflat with a tex to the said place using reflat.

B. As to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, even if one of the parties unilaterally conducts a boundary survey by disregarding the existing boundaries on the ground that the existing boundaries do not coincide with the true status of rights, such boundary marks do not constitute a balance sheet as referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Act, even if a balance sheet is set up above, which is consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

“The grounds for the Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492 Decided December 9, 1986 are that the boundary title of this case does not fall under the boundary table which is the object of a crime of aggression, since the victim unilaterally installs the boundary title of this case in the situation where there exists a dispute between the defendant and the victim in connection with the land of this case for a long time.

I considered it.

(c)

1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The part for which the victim conducted a survey of the restoration of a boundary by requesting the Korea Land Information Institute is H, I, and J land adjacent to the land of Pyeongtaek-gun C, G.

With respect to C and G land in the above land, the ownership in the victim's name was changed due to the sale on June 25, 1987.