The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant was found to have removed the wall without the consent of the complainant C (hereinafter “the wall of this case”), and as such, the defendant removed the wall of this case without the consent of the victim C and thus, it cannot be deemed that the boundary between the defendant and the victim’s own land becomes recognizable. Thus, even if a new wall was installed after the defendant, this may not affect the establishment of the crime of invasion of boundary already established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The gist of the facts charged in the instant case was to purchase the land E, which was located in Gangnam-si, the victim C, by forming a boundary with the land of Gangnam-si, which is the victim C.

around August 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) performed the construction of the instant fence, which is the victim’s site boundary mark, around 14 meters away from the building of the victim’s land; (b) around August 1, 2013, the Defendant laid down approximately 14 meters away from the victim’s land boundary mark.

The victim, who became aware of this fact, demanded the restoration of the original state and he saw the victim's right-hand side of the site to be he saw about about 17 cm and about 13 cm in the center part of the victim's site (when seen above the victim's site).

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant built a new wall after removing the instant wall, and that the newly constructed wall partially infringed on the victim’s ownership site, but at the time of the removal, there was a risk of collapse due to the destruction of the wall at the time, the Defendant constructed the said new wall at the victim’s request, and the degree of the above new wall is insignificant. In light of the above, the Prosecutor submitted the following.