A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who leases forest land owned by E in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, for free, and sets up a farming house in the river.

1. From May 26, 201 to October 30 of the same month, the Defendant, from around May 26, 2011 to around May 30, 201, destroyed a natural stone fence (a height of 120cm, width of 80cm, length of 100cm) indicating a boundary between the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the Defendant, which is adjacent to the forest of the above E, and the land owned by the Victim H, by using a scke, thereby making it impossible to identify the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1, has impaired the utility of six glass of pine trees, where the market price on the above victim’s possession cannot be known, at the same time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by a witness H in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. The chief of the complaint and the supplementary statement for complaint;

1. Photographs of the damaged site;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of investigation report (the complainant's hearing report on the H telephone statement)

1. The assertion;

A. It is not the boundary of the natural stone fenced land by the Defendant, but the Defendant did not have the intention of bordering, even if it constitutes the boundary of snow shed.

B. The damaged pine trees belong to E’s forest and field, and do not belong to the victim, and they are not destroyed since they are well-known without any influence on their growth even after their growth. Furthermore, there is no fact that the Defendant ordered the article of Poke to grow pine trees well.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “security” referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Act, which is part of the security offense, does not necessarily refer to a legitimate boundary under the law, and even if the boundary does not correspond to a legitimate boundary under the law, it is determined by the conventionally approved or by the explicit or implied agreement of interested parties.