beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. On May 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 17, 2016, at the vicinity of the Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do; (b) around 17, 2016, removed 3 red boundary lines, 8 studs, and red lines connected thereto, and laid off the field to the above place via Tex to remove them from nearby drainage lines, etc.; and (c) made a dry spaw down at the above place using Tex.
Accordingly, the defendant was unable to recognize the boundary of land by destroying and removing the boundary table.
B. On May 17, 2016, the Defendant destroyed and damaged property damage (the facts charged alternatively added) through the removal of three red boundary lines, eight color support units installed by the victim, and eight adjacent red lines, which were surveyed and installed by the Korea Land Information Service in the territory of the Republic of Korea, the victim D, in the vicinity of Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gyeongwon-gun, Gyeongwon-gun, and one connected thereto.
2. Determination
A. The purpose of the provision is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship as to the boundary of land, and thus, a boundary violation under Article 370 of the Criminal Act is not in line with the boundary of an entity, even though it is not in line with the boundary of an entity.
Even if it has been generally approved or it has been determined by the explicit or implied agreement of interested persons, such boundary marks shall be deemed to fall under the table prescribed in the above Article of the Act. On the contrary, one of the parties, on the ground that the existing boundary does not coincide with the true status of rights, unilaterally conducts a boundary surveying and that it is a boundary consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and even if a balance table is set up above, such boundary table does not fall under the table stipulated in the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1492, Dec. 9, 1986). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant and the injured party have a dispute over the land boundary for a long time.