A. The Defendant abused the right to institute a public prosecution, even though he/she made a confession and made a statement in a lump sum, including the instant facts charged, for the prosecution to separately prosecute the instant facts charged, is an abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution.

B. Improper sentencing of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion of abuse of public prosecution power deviates from considerable discretion by arbitrarily exercising public prosecution power and giving substantial disadvantage to the Defendant.

The effect of the prosecution can be denied in the case of abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution. Here, the intention of a person's right to institute a public prosecution is not sufficient simply by negligence in the course of performing his duties, and at least dolusence is required (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3026, Sept. 7, 2001, etc.). The prosecutor tried to divide the prosecution into several times according to the progress of the investigation without filing multiple criminal acts of the defendant together (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3026, Sept. 7,

the prosecutor's filing of the prosecution has been significantly relieved of discretionary power.

Nor can it be viewed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5313, Dec. 27, 2007). In full view of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is difficult to view that the public prosecutor’s indictment of this case was arbitrary or considerable deviation from discretionary power for prosecution.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant, including the facts charged in the instant case, led to confessions at an investigative agency on a number of criminal facts, such as the purchase and sale of phiphones, administration, etc., and as such, E, an accomplice, stayed in Japan, was prosecuted on March 20, 2015 only for the remainder of the criminal facts except the facts charged in the instant case related to E.

(2) On October 1, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and ten months (Seoul Central District Court 2015 order 1371-1 (Separation).