All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed)

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendants guilty of violating the Act on the Management of Mountainous Districts concerning the concept of mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the burden of proof in criminal trials, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the burden of proof in criminal trials, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, in violation of logical and empirical rules.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of statutes, the lower court held that (1) the crime of violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act against the Defendants and each of the crimes of violation of the Building Act on the B and each of the buildings on the ground of the instant zone B and C,

Next, between the crime of violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the crime of violation of each of the above Building Act, the punishment shall be imposed on the crime of violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act with the largest punishment. However, the crime of violation of each of the Building Act concerning the former A2 calendars of this case is in a substantive concurrent relationship apart from this.

From the perspective of substantive concurrent crimes, (2) Defendant A was punished for a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, which was found guilty as above, and the punishment was determined within the scope of the prescribed term of punishment after choosing imprisonment with prison labor, and the penalty of fine (the statutory penalty is a fine not exceeding two million won) prescribed for the violation of the Building Act was imposed concurrently.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the content of relevant statutes and relevant legal principles, the lower court.