Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

The facts of the crime are that the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) and the land owned by the Victim D (hereinafter “victim-owned land”) were adjoining to the instant farm road with the width of 2.5 meters and length of 18 meters including part of the previous land (hereinafter “the instant farm road”).

From April 201 to June 201 of the same year, the Defendant filled up farming roads to make the height of the above farming roads equal to the land on which the Defendant saw as a farmer, and was impossible to recognize the boundary of the land on which the victim saw as a 50cc away from the land on which the victim saw as a farmer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each investigation report (No. 12, 13) / Each investigation report (Evidence List No. 12, 13) / The farming roads of this case did not show accurate limits between the land owned by the defendant and the land owned by the victim when the width reaches 2.5 meters, but at least the above farming roads and the land owned by the victim had the function of an index indicating that the land is owned by the victim from the sloped part of the land adjoining the farming roads and the

On the contrary, the farming roads in this case functioned as an index indicating that the land owned by the defendant is the land from the sloped part of the farmland on which the above farming roads and the defendant possessed a farming house.

The application of the law to the case where the defendant was in an unrecognable condition by the stone scnifbing the above part

1. Relevant Article 370 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. There was a dispute over the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the victim due to the same act as recorded in the facts constituting the Defendant’s crime, and accordingly, the victim was at the branch office of the Daegu-gu Gyeongdong branch of the Intellectual Property Corporation on January 15, 2013.