A. Although the misunderstanding prosecutor promised to institute a non-prosecution disposition on the instant case, the prosecutor’s further indictment of the instant case after the judgment on another case became final and conclusive constitutes double punishment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an additional collection of KRW 5 million, KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her authority to institute a prosecution and gave substantial disadvantage to the defendant.

The effect of the prosecution can be denied in the case of abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution. Here, the arbitrary intention 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 9Do577 delivered on December 10, 199). Examining the record, the defendant reported to an investigation agency by the defendant.

The crime of selling philopon to F seems to have been committed after F was arrested by assault to the Southern Police Station of Incheon, and it seems to have been different from the crime of this case, which was committed before F was arrested. The crime of this case was committed by F, not the defendant, by informing the investigation agency, and the prosecutor promised to take a non-prosecution disposition regarding the facts charged of this case.

There is no evidence to deem otherwise, and there is no evidence to deem that the instant indictment by a prosecutor was arbitrary and has reached an abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution in the above legal doctrine.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, there are extenuating circumstances, such as that the defendant should consider the equity in the case of a judgment concurrently with the crime of violating the Narcotics Control Act (competence) as stated in the judgment of the court below.

However, the crime of this case is sold by the defendant.