A. The lower court, on November 30, 2017, sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court, which became final and conclusive on January 3, 2018. Since the crime of the final and conclusive judgment and the crime of the instant case are similar to the time and type of the crime, the prosecutor, despite the fact that he/she could simultaneously institute a prosecution for all the above crimes, has been dismissed by dividing it into a separate case at the latest. This constitutes abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The prosecutor’s judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine clearly deviates from the discretion of prosecution by arbitrarily exercising the right of prosecution and giving substantial disadvantages to the defendant.

According to the records of this case, on July 20, 2018, the defendant was indicted and tried for fraud, etc. (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2840, 2851, 2906, Nov. 30, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106, Nov. 30, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106, Nov. 30, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106, Nov. 23, 2018; Supreme Court Decision 201Do3145, Nov. 30, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106, Nov. 23, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 201Do3106, Nov. 3, 2018; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3149, Nov. 30, 2018).

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the above legal principles is without merit.

B. In full view of the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant, including various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendant.