[1] The meaning of the "security" in the crime of aggressioning a boundary under Article 370 of the Criminal Code, and whether it constitutes a legal legitimate boundary even if there is a dispute as to whether the existing and existing de facto boundary is a legitimate boundary (affirmative with qualification)

[2] Whether natural water, such as trees and water can also be a boundary mark constituting the boundary line under Article 370 of the Criminal Act (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that an act of finding out tide trees, etc. near the boundary line and excavating near the boundary line and thus making it unclear the boundary line constitutes an act of violation of boundary under Article 370 of the Criminal Act

[1] Article 370 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 370 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 370 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 492) Supreme Court Decision 99Do480 delivered on April 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 949Sang, 949)

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2007No1069 Decided October 19, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The phrase "security" referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Code does not necessarily mean a legitimate boundary. Although a boundary that does not conform to a legitimate boundary under the law is a boundary, if it has been generally approved in the past or has been used as a boundary determined by the express or implied agreement of the interested parties, it shall be the boundary referred to in this Article (see Supreme Court Decisions 75Do2564 delivered on May 25, 1976; 86Do1492 delivered on December 9, 1986, etc.). Therefore, even if there is a dispute as to whether a boundary used in the past is a legitimate boundary under the law, it shall be deemed that the boundary is still a boundary defined in this Article, unless there are special circumstances such as the fact that the de facto boundary is not a legally legitimate boundary, and it shall be deemed that the boundary is not a legally legitimate one, but an artificial boundary mark, such as a wall installed with a wall installed on December 28, 192.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case, based on the adopted evidence, that the defendant was found to be guilty of the violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, while there was a dispute over the boundary of land 363-1, which is the land owned by the defendant and land 363-1, which is the same as the land owned by the victim, and excavated near the boundary, and thereby making the boundary unclear.

2. In light of the records, the court below's decision that the victim cannot be deemed to have consented to the act of bordering in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal is different from the case, and it is not appropriate to

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)