The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the ownership of the Defendant, and the registration of transfer of ownership is completed without going through the lawful procedure of expropriation of land at the permissible market price, and the public road has been affected by the Defendant’s land (a land address C) and its boundary line, such as the cadastral map, has been arbitrarily changed.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the acquisition of ownership by consultation on the land of this case on November 12, 1997, are completed due to the acquisition of ownership on the land of this case. Thus, it is presumed that ownership was acquired by legitimate grounds for registration, and the data submitted by the defendant alone did not undergo the procedure for expropriation of land.

It is insufficient to view that the Defendant filed a claim for the return of unjust benefits on the ground that the market price of the Defendant, which was accepted by the court 2013Ga 39922, occupied and used as a road without permission, on the ground that the Defendant occupied and used part of the Defendant’s land (the address population C), and applied for the submission of evidence, such as on-site inspection, survey, appraisal, etc. in the trial process, but it was not recognized that the boundary of the above Defendant’s land extends to the place where the above road was installed unlike the cadastral map, and there is no other evidence to support that the boundary of the cadastral map of the instant land was arbitrarily changed by the public official in charge.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.