A. Defendant 1) The completion of the statute of limitations and abuse of authority to prosecute the instant indictment was filed on December 15, 2016, which was six months from April 13, 2016, the election day of the 20th National Assembly members.

The lower court determined that the statute of limitations has not expired on the ground that the prosecution was not completed on the grounds that the prosecution was dismissed on December 7, 2016 due to a violation of the Japanese principle of indictment, which was instituted against the Jeonju District Court 2016 Gohap 29 (hereinafter referred to as the “former case”) and the statute of limitations had not been completed since the judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016.

However, the indictment of the previous case constitutes an unlawful act, such as violating the principle of court-oriented trial and the principle of trial on evidence, which is to be achieved through the Japanese indictment system, and thus, the prosecution procedure is null and void against the provisions of the law. In this case, Article 253(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the instant public prosecution was instituted after the completion of the statute of limitations under Article 268 of the Public Official Election Act.

must be viewed.

A prosecutor has not cancelled the prosecution despite the fact that he had sufficient opportunity to correct the significant illegal state of the previous public prosecution, and has failed to again file a new public prosecution. The judgment dismissing the public prosecution has again been pronounced, which constitutes abuse of the right of public prosecution infringing on the defendant's right to a prompt trial.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of original judgment which pronounced a conviction instead of the judgment of acquittal or dismissal of public prosecution has an error of misunderstanding the legal principles as to mistake of facts and abuse of public prosecution rights.

B) On March 13, 2016, the Defendant asserted that there is no credibility in the statement by U, etc., of violation of the Act on Election of Public Officials on March 13, 2016 (1) the Defendant stated that he was not reliable in the statement by U, etc. in the bus I market, and briefly mentioned the situation or situation of the fixed state at the time