In case of a misunderstanding of legal principles as to Economic Intrusion)

If the defendant constructed a store near another's land owned by another person, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary between the above two lands, the crime of boundary intrusion as prescribed in this Article shall be established.

Article 370 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 68No4 delivered on June 13, 1968

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal No. 1

In light of the fact that Article 370 of the Criminal Act provides as one of the crimes of destruction and damage, and the purport and contents of the provision, Article 370 of the Criminal Act does not directly stipulate the act of deprivation or damage of land, but it is interpreted that Article 370 of the Criminal Act stipulates the act of infringing on the boundary mark established in order to recognize the ownership of real estate artificially, naturally or externally, as all the formal acts likely to infringe on the ownership of real estate, and thus, it is reasonable for the court below to have determined that the facts charged in this case that the defendant constructed a store by impairing eight square meters of Chuncheon and the non-indicted South Korean War's co-owned land, thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary by means of construction of the store impossible to recognize the boundary, is justifiable, and it is not possible to accept the claim

However, according to Article 370 of the Criminal Act, the damage, movement or removal of the land table is an example of an act that makes it impossible to recognize the boundary of the land, and an act that makes it impossible to recognize the boundary by any other means constitutes a crime of the same Article. Thus, as in the facts charged, the defendant constructed a store by impairing eight square meters on another's own land adjacent to his own land, and thereby making it impossible to recognize the boundary between the land owned by the defendant and the land above should be deliberated and determined. However, as seen above, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Thus, the reversal of the original judgment should not be avoided.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Chuncheon District Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu