logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2013.05.08 2012고정238
경계침범
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Around the beginning of October 101, 201, the Defendant, on the ground that landscaping trees and landscaping rocks, which were planted on the E’s land located in north-gu, north-gu, at the port of port, are located in the land owned by the Defendant and located in F, adjacent to which the above landscape trees and approximately 47 landscaping trees and approximately 80 landscaping rocks were cut down by cutting off and destroying them, thereby adversely affecting the boundaries.

2. Determination

A. The crime of boundary intrusion under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is established only when the mere destruction, movement, or removal of a boundary mark is insufficient, and it is established by making it impossible to recognize the boundary of land by the above act or any other means. Here, the term “security” refers to an index indicating the boundary of land, such as ownership, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Do2564, May 25, 1976). The term “de facto boundary” refers to a de facto boundary that has been used to a certain extent objectively, such as whether it is a legitimate boundary under the law, regardless of whether it is a legitimate one.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8973 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). Accordingly, in the instant case, first of all, it should be proved first that the landscape trees and landscape rocks, which existed between the victim E-owned port and the 654m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 1,509m3m2 (hereinafter “F land”) in North-gu, Northern-gu, the Defendant owned at port as indicated in the facts charged, showed the location limit between the instant land and the instant land and the instant land, and that such a surface is recognized as a de facto boundary where the said surface is objectively used to a certain extent.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, G purchased 2,163 square meters in Northern-gu, Northern-gu, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, and divided the instant land into D and the instant F land on October 26, 2004, and newly built the instant land with a high ground, and G thereafter.

arrow