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

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court of the original instance can find territorial jurisdiction as a result of the consolidation of territorial jurisdiction according to the relevant cases under Articles 5, 11, 2, and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to territorial jurisdiction, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states territorial jurisdiction as the place of crime, the address, domicile, or present location of the defendant. The crime scene of this case, or the defendants' domicile, residence, or present location are determined to be not the jurisdiction of the court of the original instance. Since the defendants filed an application for violation of territorial jurisdiction prior to the statement of the case against the defendant, this case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the

B. First, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor did not raise any objection to the above judgment of the court below that the territorial jurisdiction of this case does not belong to the court of the court of the court below. Thus, it is omitted to review whether the above judgment of the court of the court below is proper. 2) Next, the prosecutor asserts that since the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against N Group Chairman P was prosecuted to the Changwon District Court on September 11, 2013, the above violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and this case constitutes related cases under Article 11 subparag. 2 or 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is permitted to consolidate the territorial jurisdiction of this case pursuant to Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. The jurisdiction of a related case under Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not necessarily a premise that the so-called unique jurisdiction case and its related case should be tried by consolidation or consolidation, but a related case has been pending in the unique jurisdiction court during the continuation of a unique jurisdiction case.