The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) of the instant red survey and yellow paint constitute the boundary table for the crime of boundary, the judgment below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor for ex officio judgment.

A prosecutor shall maintain the facts charged against the crime of border intrusion which was acquitted by the court below at the time of the trial, and shall apply to the name of the crime, "damage and damage to property" in Articles 366 and 40 of the Criminal Act, "Article 366 and Article 40 of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of the Act, and the facts charged in the case of this case [the judgment] added the same contents as the facts charged, and since the judgment was changed by this court's permission,

However, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the existing facts charged is still subject to the judgment of the court.

The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine by comprehensively taking account of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the boundary between the non-survey of this case and the yellow paint has been generally accepted since the past, or it is difficult to view the boundary as a de facto boundary used objectively to a certain extent, such as the existence of an express or implied agreement between the Defendant and the victim, which is an interested party, and determined that the said boundary does not constitute a land boundary subject to

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the violation of boundary is without merit.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is the same.