All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case shall be dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) Although the misunderstanding of the legal principles promised by the prosecutor to impose a non-prosecution disposition on the instant case, the indictment of the instant case after the appellate court was sentenced on another case constitutes abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the prosecutor arbitrarily exercised his/her authority to prosecute the Defendant to give substantial disadvantages to the Defendant.

The effect of the indictment can be denied in the case of abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution. Here, the arbitrary intention to institute a public prosecution is insufficient simply by negligence in the course of performing official duties, and at least dolusent or a certain intention is required (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do577, Dec. 10, 199). Examining the record, C, which purchased a phiphone from the Defendant, appears to have made the first statement to the investigation agency in relation to the instant case on February 14, 2017, and the prosecutor promised to institute a non-prosecution disposition regarding the instant facts charged by the prosecutor.

There is no evidence to see that the prosecution of this case by the prosecutor is arbitrary and has reached an abuse of the right of prosecution in light of the investigation process, investigation and prosecution time after C’s statement, the contents and specific circumstances of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the unlawful argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, it is advantageous to the fact that the Defendant itself recognizes the criminal facts of this case, the equity between the case where the Defendant was tried at the same time as the offense of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., for which the judgment of the judgment of the lower court has become final, and the investigative agency