logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.25 2016노2161
경계침범
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the facts charged of this case shall be found guilty on the basis of relevant evidence, but the court below acquitted the above facts charged, and the court below erred by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. On November 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was unable to remove posts forming boundaries between the above land and F in order to build a new house for electric power supply to E on both sides on both sides of the instant facts charged; and (b) laid down soil below the posts by using a fracker.

Accordingly, in order to determine the boundary of land, the defendant removed posts installed above the boundary marks and made it impossible to recognize the boundary.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant intentionally removed posts or removed posts makes it impossible to recognize the perception of boundaries.”

① At the court of the court below, the victim stated to the effect that “the defendant had not observed that he directly damaged the posts, and that the construction business operator should have damaged them.”

② According to the construction business operator H, the Defendant asked that the construction work should be carried out without breaking boundaries, such as not damaging the victim’s side and the problem not to occur during the construction process, and that the posts were damaged during the construction process, but that the posts were not damaged as a whole by breaking the strings, which led to the strings, so there was no problem.

C. In a thorough examination of the records of the trial court's determination, the court below is just to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime on the grounds of the above circumstances, and it is so argued by the prosecutor.

arrow