2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 201, the Plaintiff submitted a written complaint to the Dong-dong Police Station stating that “the deceased was installing a program on the Plaintiff’s computer and leaked the Plaintiff’s personal information.”

B. In relation to the Plaintiff’s above accusation, the prosecutor, who is in charge of the Jinwon District Court’s jurisdiction, issued a non-prosecution disposition (hereinafter “non-prosecution disposition in the instant case”), on September 9, 201, on the ground that he/she was not suspected of having been suspected (Evidence of Evidence).

Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against non-prosecution disposition in the instant case, the public prosecutor in charge of the Busan High Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the appeal on November 2, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "decision to dismiss the appeal of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In light of the empirical and logical rules, the Plaintiff suffered mental damage due to the non-prosecution disposition and the decision to dismiss the appeal of this case, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea shall compensate the Plaintiff for such damage.

B. Defendant B made a false statement with regard to Defendant B as a witness of the above accusation case, which is different from the fact, and as a result, the result of an erroneous investigation was derived, Defendant B is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

3. Determination

A. In a case where a prosecutor institutes a prosecution or non-prosecution with respect to a claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, the determination of a law is reasonable and absolute, not only an absolute interpretation, but also a variety of opinions can be divided depending on the person who executes it. In order to be deemed unlawful since the pertinent determination process cannot be deemed unlawful in light of the general legal concept, in other words, in a case where it is deemed that the relevant disposition was clearly an extraordinary judgment from among the general public with a sound common sense, in light of the empirical and logical rules, there is a clear defect that it is difficult to affirm the rationality of the relevant determination.