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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On November 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) cut off a stone fence (an average height of about 50~60cc, about 30-40m in length) boundary of the victim D located adjacent to the land owned by the Defendant located in the Gyeongbuk-gun; (b) cut off the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant; (c) cut off the boundary of about 30 meters in length, indicating the boundary of the land owned by the victim D, and caused the Defendant to be unable to recognize the boundary between the two land without permission, because the boundary of about 30 meters in length, indicating the land owned by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as an investigation report (Attachment of materials submitted by a complainant), an investigation report (Attachment of a field photograph), an investigation report (Attachment of a site photograph) (Attachment of a site photograph to a site photograph)

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, who was inside the land on which the Defendant was surveyed as owned by the Defendant, was small, but this does not amount to the extent that it can be seen as a boundary, and it was to clarify the boundary of the Defendant’s land according to the result of the survey. Therefore, the Defendant’s act is not unlawful.

2. The phrase "security" referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Act does not necessarily mean a legitimate boundary. Although a boundary does not conform to a legitimate boundary under the law, if it has been generally approved in the past, or if it is objectively used as a boundary determined by the express or implied agreement of interested parties, it is a boundary as referred to in this Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Do2564, May 25, 1976; 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986).