Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On December 28, 2016, the Defendant removed cement fences ( approximately 680cc in length, approximately 175cc in height, about 175cc in thickness) installed from the past to the boundary line between the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by E and F, on the ground that the building was newly built on the said land, thereby preventing the Defendant from identifying the boundary of the said land and G land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to certified copies of each real estate register, the degree of damage to a wall, the photograph before and after the damage to a wall (section 5), seven copies of an additional field-related photograph, cadastral map, cadastral map, a certified copy of a cadastral map, an investigation report (including on-site photographs);

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the allegation does not coincide with the actual boundary between the above-mentioned land (Seoul Northern-gu D and G land) as indicated in the facts charged of this case, and thus, does not fall under the actual boundary chart. Even if the boundary table is part of the fence, as long as the fence is remaining, the result of the removal of the fence which resulted in an impossible recognition of the relevant boundary.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case: ① The “the wall of this case,” which was removed by the defendant for the construction of a new building, is clear that the present situation alone constitutes “the boundary table” in fact, where the defendant was located near the boundary between the two lands and performed the role of distinguishing the size, division, etc. of the two lands from the previous one; ② The de facto boundary table does not correspond to the actual boundary line.

Even if so, it shall begin before.