손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts under the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in respect of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including the number of pages), with a comprehensive consideration of the whole purport of the pleadings.
A. In around 2003, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and with the purport that “the unsatisfed person who had access to the Plaintiff’s computer and obstructed the normal operation of the computer, thereby blocking the Internet service and obstructing the commission of the computer” (hereinafter referred to as “the first complaint”).
(2) On April 2008, the prosecutor in charge of investigation rejected the Plaintiff’s second accusation on the ground that it is evident that the Plaintiff had no suspicion after investigating the case (hereinafter “the first accusation”). Accordingly, on the grounds that the prosecutor did not properly handle the first accusation, the prosecutor filed a complaint requesting punishment (hereinafter “the second accusation”), but the prosecutor in charge rejected the Plaintiff’s second accusation, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal and a petition for adjudication, but all of the dismissal was dismissed.
B. On March 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Republic of Korea as Seoul Central District Court 2009Da74302 and rejected the case without properly dealing with the case, but the prosecutor abused the authority of the prosecutor in charge of the second accusation and made a disposition of rejection illegally. Thus, the Republic of Korea shall compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 20, 2009. 2) The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2009Na38567, and in the above appellate trial, the Plaintiff asserted that “Phys Adress were invaded on the network as a result of the execution of the order,” and on May 28, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Phonfg/alls infringed on the network.”