The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles recognizes the fact that the Defendant made a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was in a situation in which the boundary of the land remains unrecognizable because it still remains.

Since the boundary crime cannot be seen as being committed, it is not established.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 07:00 on September 9, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, at the boundary line between the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul building site and the victim D’s land owned by the Defendant, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of land without permission.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the evidence produced at the time.

(c)

On the other hand, the boundary intrusion crime under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is established only by simply destroying the land table and destroying, moving or removing the land table, or by making it impossible to recognize the land boundary by other means. The damage, movement, removal, etc. of the land table is merely an example of the method to make it impossible to recognize the land boundary, and it is necessary to recognize the land boundary as the result of such an act, and there is no provision on the attempted crime. Thus, even if the damage, etc. of the table table does not occur, this crime cannot be established unless the result of land boundary recognition impossibility does not occur (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do856, Sept. 10, 191, etc.). Meanwhile, the boundary intrusion crime is an objectively used crime to protect the clarity and certainty of the land boundary as legal interest, and the boundary protected is not necessarily required if it is actually true and genuine, and it is not limited to the ownership of another person’s boundary mark.

In addition, the land is damaged by destroying the boundary sign.