A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 2015, the Defendant, during the construction of a tenement house in Seopo-si owned by his father CD, Seopo-si owned by the Defendant’s father, the Defendant was unable to recognize the boundary of the land by removing a stone fence equivalent to approximately 1-2 meters in height and approximately 50 meters in length, which was installed on the boundary of G land owned by the said land and adjacent land, and located on the boundary of G land owned by F, a neighboring land.

2. Around March 28, 2016, the Defendant damaged a total of 91 gone g trees, the market price of which is the victim’s possession, which was used as an over-source scenic forest, on the ground of the increase and landscape in the above G, which is the victim’s F, around March 28, 2016, by using electric saws.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A written statement prepared by the I;

1. Full certificate of each registered matter, certified copy of cadastral map, and surveying result map for boundary restoration;

1. Photographs of damage scene;

1. The investigation report (the currency of H);

1. Investigation report (verification as to whether land has been increased);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (for an amount of damage)

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 370 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) and (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the reason for sentencing below) was that the Defendant conducted a boundary survey during the construction of a tenement house, and discovered that the stone fence between the said construction site and the instant orchard site and the victim’s orchard site, which are neighboring land, did not coincide with the result of the survey, led to the Defendant’s unexpected damage to the victim in order to undergo a completion inspection and to prevent the occupant’s civil petition.

Although the defendant gets up a boundary on the basis of accurate survey results, the constructed apartment house plays a big role.