The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged and the summary of the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant is the owner of the fourth-story building in Gwangju-dong-gu (hereinafter “Defendant-owned site”), and the victim E is the owner of the G parking lot site in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju-gu (hereinafter “victim-owned site”).

On March 23, 2014, the Defendant removed approximately 2 meters in height, which is a boundary mark, which constitutes the boundary line between the site owned by the Defendant and the victim’s site, and removed the brick fence with a length of eight meters (hereinafter “instant fence”) from the excavated machine, etc. to make it impossible for the Defendant to recognize the boundary of land.

B. Although the gist of the Defendant’s assertion is consistent with the removal of the instant fence, it cannot be deemed that “the boundary of both sites became impossible to recognize.”

The Defendant had a criminal intent to commit a crime of bordering;

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. Whether the boundary violation of Article 370 of the relevant legal doctrine is impossible to recognize the boundary of land (1) is established only when the mere destruction of the boundary mark is insufficient and the boundary mark is destroyed, moved, or removed, or it is impossible to recognize the boundary by other means.

Inasmuch as there is no provision regarding the attempt to commit a crime of aggressioning on the boundary, even if the act of destroying the boundary mark does not lead to a crime of aggressioning on the boundary, unless the “the result of land boundary recognition” occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do856, Sept. 10, 191). In this case, the evidence duly examined reveals that ① the fence of this case was installed at the boundary between the land owned by the victim and the land owned by the defendant. ② the victim removed the entire house on the land owned by the victim around 2003, and then used the concrete floor as a pay parking lot. ③ The Defendant removed the building owned by the Defendant, which is adjacent to the wall of this case.