beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. From May 15, 2007 to Kimpo-si, the Defendant owns the 1,762 square meters prior to C in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).
Defendant
Around November 28, 2013, the land owned by D contains the foregoing E 295 square meters (hereinafter “D-owned land”). D, on the ground that around November 28, 2013, conducted a cadastral survey to the branch offices of the Gyeonggi-do headquarters Kimpo-si branch of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City headquarters, which conducted a cadastral survey to stuff the D-owned land, connected the land with a stringing with the stringing with the stringing with the string with the stringing with the stringing with the stringing with the string of the string, the string as the boundary table with the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant boundary table”).
On November 2014, the Defendant did not notify F of the above boundary marks to F, an engineer of the sofaging season, and ordered F, who was the Defendant’s land, to use the sofaging season, thereby destroying the above boundary marks in the process of flat work by using the sofaging season.
2. The defendants and the defense counsel in the board did not have intention to damage the boundary marks of this case even though the defendant had done the first work to F, and the defendant had no intention to do so.
The argument is asserted.
In light of the records, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① even if based on the statement of the complainant D, the victim made a statement to the effect that “I would like to say that I would like to say I would go to the end of the victim after the boundary marks of this case were installed,” and there was no fact that D actively resisted that the boundary marks of this case are inconsistent with the actual boundary, and actively resisted to D. ② The Defendant’s work entrusted to F police officer on November 201, 204 was conducted to create access to the land owned by the Defendant, but the above work was impossible due to the owner of neighboring land, and the Defendant was obliged to pay F a daily wage to F, so that F would be engaged in the flatization work (referring to the first work) of the Defendant’s land owned by the Defendant, ③ When F would be flat, it was done.