Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

. Prosecutors;

A. Defendant A1) In the instant case of misapprehension of the legal principle, the fraud case that was instituted and finalized prior to the indictment (this Court Decision 2018 Godan1880, hereinafter “a final separate case”) is deemed as “a final separate case.”

(2) As the case was committed at the same Bophishing organization and the date, content, and method of the crime are similar, each of the above cases must be prosecuted en bloc and tried in a single trial proceeding. Nevertheless, the prosecution’s failure or illegal omission by the pertinent prosecutor constitutes abuse of the right of prosecution where a separate indictment was instituted against Defendant A by dividing only the instant crime as a separate case constitutes abuse of the right of prosecution. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, and one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants B) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is deemed that the prosecutor’s judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine seems to have remarkably deviates from the right to prosecution by arbitrarily exercising the right to prosecution, the effect of prosecution can be denied by deeming it as abuse of the right to prosecution. Here, arbitrary exercise of the right to prosecution is insufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing duties, and at least with any intention to do so.

(1) The Prosecutor’s indictment cannot be deemed as significantly deviating from the right of discretion on prosecution on the ground that the Prosecutor did not prosecute the Defendant’s various criminal acts in a lump sum and separately indicted several times according to the progress of the investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3026, Sept. 7, 2001).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5313 Decided December 27, 2007, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, each of the crimes of this case was instituted later than the case finalized. However, the fraud of this case was committed at all by the defrauded compared to the crime of separate cases finalized.