However, the part of the litigation cost is not included in the case that was not prosecuted by the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office 2015 punishment 7702 and the petition for adjudication was dismissed by the Seoul High Court 2015 Seocho District Public Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter "first instance case").

The facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged prior to the instant case are different from the name of the crime, the period of crime, and the method of crime.

Accordingly, since the court of the application for adjudication did not deliberate and decide on the possibility and necessity of institution of public prosecution of the facts charged in this case, the facts charged in this case are different from the prior case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles that rendered a judgment dismissing a public prosecution on the grounds that the facts charged in this case are identical to the prior case and that other important evidence was not discovered.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the indictment of this case is about the same case as the previous case, since the facts charged of this case are included in the suspected facts of the previous case, and the two defendants are practically identical. Both cases are almost the same contents of the investigation, such as the use of the money withdrawn by the defendant, the reason why the money was deposited in the L passbook, the result of the resolution of the board of directors, etc.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted in the court below's judgment, the above various circumstances are justified.

In addition, considering the circumstances cited by the court below as follows, the recognition and decision of the court below is justified, and there is a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles as the prosecutor pointed out.