The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fence of this case removed by the defendant does not constitute a boundary between the land owned by the defendant and the land owned by the victim;

Even if the wall of this case falls under the boundary of the crime of aggressioning a boundary under the Criminal Act, the Defendant temporarily removed the wall of this case for the construction of a new building at the time, and then installed a new building's outer wall at the location where the wall of this case was installed or a new wall was installed. Thus, the Defendant did not make it impossible for him to recognize the boundary of land.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine as to whether the fence of this case constitutes a "bridge" as referred to in the crime of aggressioning a boundary.

(1) The term "survement" as referred to in Article 370 of the Criminal Code refers to a boundary that does not necessarily refer to a legitimate boundary under the law, but does not correspond to a legitimate boundary under the law.

Even if it has been generally approved or has been determined by the explicit or implied agreement of interested persons and has been used as a boundary in an objective manner, it is called a boundary as referred to in this section.

Therefore, there is a dispute as to whether the de facto boundary, which was previously used as such, is a legitimate boundary under the law or not, (see Supreme Court Decisions 75Do2564, May 25, 1976; 86Do1492, December 9, 1986, etc.).

However, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that the de facto boundary is not a legally legitimate boundary, it shall be deemed that the boundary still falls under the boundary stipulated in this Article, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1682, Dec. 8, 1992).