logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.06.20 2019고정49
경계침범
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person engaged in agriculture.

On May 22, 2018, the Defendant arranged a dry field owned by himself (hereinafter “the dry field on the part of the Defendant”) located in Jinan-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-do (hereinafter “the part of the Defendant”), and occupied a boundary by removing three posts (hereinafter “the instant posts”) to be set up after surveying to indicate the boundary with the neighboring victim C (hereinafter “victim”), thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the relevant boundary, and by including the paddy bank accumulated within the victim’s land (hereinafter “the instant paddy site”) in his own dry field.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant act” in entirety of the Defendant’s above acts 2.

A. The purpose of the crime of boundary violation under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundaries. Thus, even though the boundary marks are not in conformity with the actual boundary line, if they have been approved generally from the previous time or are determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties, such boundary marks shall fall under the balance sheet under the above Article of the Criminal Act. On the contrary, even if one of the parties unilaterally executes a boundary surveying by disregarding the existing boundary and unilaterally, on the ground that the existing boundary does not coincide with the true status of rights, and even if the boundary marks are installed above, such boundary marks do not fall under the balance sheet as stipulated in the above Article of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986).

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, are, namely, ① the dry field on the part of the defendant and the injured party are adjacent to each other, until the act of this case occurred.

arrow