All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged on April 2013, 2013, removed the border marking posts installed by the victim on the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) and E land owned by the victim D (hereinafter “victim’s land”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted of this part of the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) On October 22, 2013, in the lawsuit demanding the confirmation of boundary instituted by the Defendant, the boundary of the branch of the national land (hereinafter “branch of the national land”) is measured and posts indicating the boundary are owned by the branch of the national land, which is located around October 22, 2013 in accordance with the order of the presiding judge to apply for a boundary surveying in the lawsuit demanding the confirmation of boundary, and thus, it constitutes the crime of damaging property where the Defendant removed and invalidated the boundary.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the above posts are deemed to be owned by the defendant and acquitted the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a sum of KRW 300,000) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The farm roads between the land owned by the Defendant and the land owned by the victim (hereinafter “the farm roads of this case”) do not constitute the boundary of the above land.

Even if the farm road of this case falls under the boundary of the crime of aggressioning a boundary under the Criminal Act, the Defendant opened the farm road of this case in order to prevent the collapse of the land owned by the Defendant, which is part of the width of the farm road of this case, and established a new stone shed. Thus, the Defendant did not make it impossible to recognize the boundary of each of the above land.

In addition, the defendant has accumulated stone in the farm road of this case and suspended it to the victim's stop and attempted.