Among the defendants B and C, each part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of eight months, and Defendant C.

A. Defendant B and Defendant C1 (Defendant C) did not inform Defendant D of the investigation situation so that he could escape from V, such as the crime No. 2-b.2). Thus, the judgment below convicting Defendant C of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) misunderstanding of legal principles (defendant B and C) ① part of the part of transportation convenience in relation to AB moving to a law firm, Defendant B and C, as stated in Article 2-b.1 of the Criminal Act, sentO to P to AB located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and later moved to the same lane on the same day.

However, it is difficult to see that the crime was committed by a law firm AB's attorney-at-law, which is an open place of theO, to escape as stated in the crime, and the provision of transportation convenience as a whole does not allow theO to escape, but rather it merely leads the original place to escape again and does not constitute the crime of crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime.

(2) As long as the act of hiding the principal offender or of facilitating the escape of the principal offender continues, the crime shall continue to exist as long as the act of hiding the principal offender or of facilitating the escape of the principal offender, a single crime shall be established as a single crime if the same person conceals or causes another person to escape.

Nevertheless, the court below held that since the crime of concealment of criminals and the crime of aggravation of concurrent crimes were deemed as substantive concurrent relations, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of concealment of criminals and the crime of aggravation of concurrent crimes.

3) Improper sentencing (Defendant B and Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

(d)

Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the acquittal part of Defendant A).