Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On March 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) conducted a boundary survey of a 1,494 square meters of C Cemetery and a 526 square meters of land owned by D; and (b) installed seven boundary marks along the boundary line.

Nevertheless, around August 2014, the Defendant removed 4 boundary marks installed as above by using Macles.

As such, the Defendant made it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by removing the boundary marks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A certified copy of the boundary restoration survey map, cadastral map, and land register;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 370 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion ① The Defendant did not remove the boundary marks.

② Since steel structures installed in 2010 play a boundary role, land boundary cannot be perceived due to the removal of boundary marks.

2. Determination 1) According to the above evidence (in particular, witness D’s statutory statement), the fact that the Defendant intentionally removed the boundary mark can be sufficiently recognized. 2) In light of the following: (i) the Defendant and D conducted the boundary survey under the agreement, and installed the boundary mark; (ii) the Defendant, in particular, installed the boundary mark after conducting the boundary survey to clarify the boundary with the iron structure, etc. installed by the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant removed the boundary mark and installed a new gate by partially destroying D’s land, it is reasonable to deem that the boundary of the land became impossible to recognize by the Defendant’s act.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case are found guilty, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.