1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The former wife C is the owner of the area of 7,527 square meters and the area of E farm area of 2,364 square meters prior to the D, Hongcheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, and the Defendant’s external third village F is the owner of the area of G farm land of 12,46 square meters, H large 906 square meters, and 1,176 square meters for I cemetery.

The F agreed on March 22, 2012 that he laid down tree posts on the boundary of the land after surveying each of the above land, and that he and the Defendant and the above tree posts as boundary posts.

1. On March 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 2012, up to 12,466 square meters of Gangwon-gun G farm site owned by F; and (b) up to 7,527 square meters of land owned by C, four posts indicating a boundary are buried underground, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of land.

2. Around March 2012, the Defendant: (a) up to March 2012, the Defendant: (b) placed one jum jum on the boundary of KRW 1,176 square meters in the Hancheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and the E farm site owned by C; and (c) made it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by inserting it underground.

3. Around March 2012, the Defendant: (a) up to 12,466 square meters of the Gangwon-gun G farm site owned by F and one set of posts indicating the boundary on the boundary of H 906 square meters; and (b) made it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of land by inserting one set of posts indicating the boundary in the ground.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Survey result map of boundary restoration;

1. All the matters to be registered;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Code for the detention of the workhouses asserts that the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of invasion on the boundary or the illegality is excluded, since the defendant was set up in the ground in order to protect the posts when they could be damaged, and the land boundary cannot be recognized thereby.