All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (i) was aware of the facts pertaining to the abuse of public prosecution or the legal doctrine regarding Defendant (i.e., abuse of public prosecution right) and secured relevant evidence on or around June 2015, the prosecutor conducted an interrogation of the facts charged in the instant case on April 20, 2016 where about ten months passed since he/she had been aware of the facts charged in the instant case, and subsequently filed the public prosecution in the instant case on June 2, 2017, after the judgment of the appellate court of the previous case was rendered ( April 28, 2017). In light of the following, the Defendant was recommended by filing a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to serious injuries during the process of the arrest of the previous case, and the Defendant was sentenced to not guilty on the part of the facts charged in the prior case, the prosecutor, at least, additionally arrested the Defendant who was acquitted of some of the facts charged in the prior case, or ordered the Defendant to additionally be sentenced to a sentence by the Defendant, and thus, should have the right to institute a public prosecution in the instant case infringed interest.

2.2. The punishment of the lower court (the additional collection of KRW 600,000,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) the prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her power to prosecute and rendered substantial disadvantages to the defendant, thereby remarkably deviating from the discretionary power to make a judgment on the misapprehension of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the abuse of the defendant's power to prosecute

The effect of the prosecution can be denied in the case of abuse of the right of prosecution, and the arbitrary intention of prosecution is simply by negligence in the course of performing duties.