All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the records of the court's scope of trial, the court below acquitted all the defendants on the facts charged, and it is recognized that the prosecutor appealed only on the remainder of innocence except the part of innocence as to the violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act against the defendants A.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the not guilty part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant A's escape, the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act against the defendant B, and the not guilty part as to the criminal escape.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. Although Defendant B’s portion of land exclusively used by Defendant B constituted “Mountainous district” as prescribed by the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted Defendant B of violating the Mountainous Districts Management Act among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court cited that Defendant B’s act constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal escape in the course of committing an offense against Defendant B, and a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal escape in the course of committing an offense against Defendant A, and a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal escape in the course of committing an offense against Defendant B, as long as Defendant B’s act was subject to investigation of violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act by a special judicial police officer, the lower court may establish the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal escape in the course of committing an offense against a criminal escape in the course of committing an offense against Defendant

Furthermore, the fact that Defendant A, even though he was aware that he was investigated as a suspect, stated that he committed an exclusive act in the mountainous district of Defendant B, and the fact that Defendant B did not interfere with Defendant A’s false statement even though he was aware that he was subject to an investigation in lieu of Defendant A, or that Defendant A was subject to an investigation in his status as a suspect.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.