The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal principle) is not the boundary mark of each land, but the boundary bank did not exist, and only the boundary boundary was constituted by boundary pages, and thus the boundary was not recognizable by the Defendant’s act. Family boundary became impossible.

Even if there is a boundary amnesty, the defendant did not think that the boundary would be impossible to recognize if mulberry trees were removed, and therefore there was no intention to commit a boundary erosion.

2. Determination

A. On March 2013, 2013, the Defendant of the instant facts charged: (a) discovered approximately 10 grans of mulberry trees, which constituted a boundary between the said land and the said F-owned land adjacent thereto; and (b) laid down part of the boundary bank.

As a result, the Defendant removed the boundary marks made on the land so that the boundary became impossible to recognize.

B. The lower court rendered a conviction on the facts charged of this case on the basis of the evidence indicated in its judgment.

C. 1) The evidence of criminal facts in the relevant legal principles must be presented by the prosecutor. The proof of criminal facts should have a judge acquire a high probability to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it should be determined as the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007). In addition, the boundary offense under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is with the aim of protecting private rights and maintaining social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship as to land boundary, and it is insufficient to simply destroy, move or remove the boundary mark, or any other act as above.