The judgment below

Among them, the part on the damage of property between January 2015 and December 2016 is reversed.

Defendant 1,000,000 won.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Construction Machinery Management Act among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendant of a fine of KRW 1 million, among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendant as to the violation of boundary and each damage to property.

The defendant did not appeal against this, and the prosecutor appealed only to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, since the conviction part of the judgment of the court below is already separated due to the failure of both parties to appeal, the scope of the trial is limited to the acquittal part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the boundary of land D (hereinafter referred to as “land”) and C’s land divided from the above land, at the time of subdivision, the land was set up in the cadastral construction at the time of subdivision. However, as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, was unable to recognize the existing boundary of each of the above land by installing fences from the land owned by himself to the D portion of the land owned by others.

B. From January 2, 2015 to December 2, 2016, the Defendant’s act of selling a parcel of land owned by the victim is an act that undermines the utility of the said parcel of land, thereby damaging the crime of causing property damage, and the Defendant’s intentional act of causing property damage is also recognized, insofar as he/she perceived that he/she had sold a parcel of land owned by another person.

C. According to the testimony, etc. of the J on February 2015, the Defendant’s act of raising paths from G land owned by the victim on February 2, 2015 constitutes an act of impairing the utility of land and causing damage to property. The Defendant’s act of raising soil on another’s land constitutes an act of destroying property damage.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the crime of border invasion 1 of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant is the land owned by the Defendant, which is located in Jung-Eup, Jung-gu, Seoul, from November 2013 to May 2014.